(March 11, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The consequence argument:
1. If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences of natural laws of the remote past.
2. We can't change the natural laws
3. We can't change the remote past
4. If determinism is true, as well as 2 and 3, then we can only do what we in fact do.
5. If we can only do what we in fact do, then we never act freely.
6. If determinism is true, then we never act freely
Frankfurt's rebuttal to premise 5
1. Franny has a mind control device
2. The device will only be used on Zoe if she deviates from Franny's desired actions.
3. Zoe commits the actions without deviating
4. Zoe acted freely
A matter of chance argument
1. If an agent's act is undetermined, then how the agent acts is a matter of chance
2. If how an agent acts is a matter of chance, then the agent is not morally responsible for the act.
3. If an agent's act is undetermined, then the agent is not morally responsible for the act.
Von Inwagon's mystery
1. If acts are determined, then the agent is not responsible for the act
2. If acts are undetermined, then the agent is not responsible for the act.
3. We believe we are sometimes responsible for our acts, we believe we know we are responsible
Conditional analysis of ability
1. S can do A iff S were to try to A, then S would succeed.
Just a few arguments I've ran across in the past while on this topic. It's one of metaphysics most debated subjects, specifically because of moral responsibility and metaphysical freedom.
Long time, no see. Has your absence been freely chosen or has it been the consequence of your pre-determined schedule? Nice to hear from you and indeed brevity is appreciated.
