Hard Incompatibilism Vs Libertarianism
The Debate Between Libertarianism and Hard Incompatibilism
2,062 Words
Philip Samaan
1000634986
PHL105, 30/03/2014
Prof. J. Brunning
Mark Schranz Robert Kane argues for the existence of free will and for the existence of a deep connection between free will and moral responsibility. Kane firstly establishes that individuals possessing surface freedoms, such as buying what they will at a convenience store or watching what they will on a television set, do not necessarily indicate free will. He exemplifies the citizens of B. F. Skinner 's Walden Two. They are characterized as having the surface freedoms to "have and do what they will or choose, but only to the extent that they have been conditioned by behavioural engineers and neuro-chemists to will or choose what they can have and do" (Reasoning and Responsibility, 426). Kane stresses that such citizens, although possessing the surface freedoms to do or choose as they will, are void of any free will since they lack the ability to will what they want. The ability to will what one wants is identified by Robert Kane as deep freedom. The presence of this deep freedom, according to Kane, is the prerequisite of free will. Robert Kane …show more content…
Pereboom agrees with Baruch Spinoza, who maintains that, in accordance with the nature of the universe, all human beings lack the sort of free will required to be praiseworthy for works of good or blameworthy for works of wrongdoing. That is, Pereboom agrees that all human beings lack the sort of free will required for moral responsibility. In this essay, Pereboom first attempts to argue in favour of hard incompatibilism by rejecting the logical alternatives, libertarianism and compatibilism. He then advances to demonstrate how hard incompatibilism can be compatible with both morality and life
2,062 Words
Philip Samaan
1000634986
PHL105, 30/03/2014
Prof. J. Brunning
Mark Schranz Robert Kane argues for the existence of free will and for the existence of a deep connection between free will and moral responsibility. Kane firstly establishes that individuals possessing surface freedoms, such as buying what they will at a convenience store or watching what they will on a television set, do not necessarily indicate free will. He exemplifies the citizens of B. F. Skinner 's Walden Two. They are characterized as having the surface freedoms to "have and do what they will or choose, but only to the extent that they have been conditioned by behavioural engineers and neuro-chemists to will or choose what they can have and do" (Reasoning and Responsibility, 426). Kane stresses that such citizens, although possessing the surface freedoms to do or choose as they will, are void of any free will since they lack the ability to will what they want. The ability to will what one wants is identified by Robert Kane as deep freedom. The presence of this deep freedom, according to Kane, is the prerequisite of free will. Robert Kane …show more content…
Pereboom agrees with Baruch Spinoza, who maintains that, in accordance with the nature of the universe, all human beings lack the sort of free will required to be praiseworthy for works of good or blameworthy for works of wrongdoing. That is, Pereboom agrees that all human beings lack the sort of free will required for moral responsibility. In this essay, Pereboom first attempts to argue in favour of hard incompatibilism by rejecting the logical alternatives, libertarianism and compatibilism. He then advances to demonstrate how hard incompatibilism can be compatible with both morality and life