Incompatibilism: John Stuart Mill And Determinism

While Derk Pereboom offers a "hard incompatibilism" that makes both free will as well as moral responsibility incompatible with determinism, John Stuart Mill thinks the opposite. One of the main distinctions that he is making herein is that civil or social liberty entail about the nature as well as limits of power upon which can be legitimately be part of the community or than can be exercised by an individual or society (Pereboom, 2014). In his part John Stuart Mill argues that; social liberty may be related with “hard determinism” however this does not mean that determinism is true. John Stuart Mill categorically states that determinism is not incompatible with moral responsibility (Pereboom, 2014). Based on the facts presented by the two philosophers; it is apparent that free will of some sort is required for moral responsibility and therefore; hard determinism as supposedly conceivable dare would be jointly exhaustive positions (Pereboom, 2014). This means that if we allow the "deterministic" positions the view that events may result from indeterministic processes of the sort described by quantum mechanics each has a consequence that is difficult to accept.
Having known that; it is evident that Stace's compatibilism would require him to accept Mill's political views. There are multiple reasons why this will force him to accept Mill's political views (Pereboom, 2014). For example; according to Mill’s social liberty there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down in a bid to prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed on by innumerable vultures which defines why his ill is more stronger than Pereboom who is a hard incompatibilist (Pereboom,