Discussion Questions for November 21

1. What are the chief characteristics of human beings which leads Holbach to say that human beings have no free choice?

What is his idea of freedom?

Why do people think they have free will according to Holbach?

He says there is no difference between a man who is thrown out of a window and a man who jumps out. Why does he say this? How would a compatibilist reply? And, how might Holbach answer the compatibilist?

2. Describe Stace's procedure for analyzing the issue of freedom, determinism and responsibility. Does this seem like a good procedure to you? What is his conclusion about free and unfree acts?

Discuss his example of a borderline case (the thug with gun.) Do you find his answer convincing? Why or why not? What does this reveal about the compatibilist answer to the free will question? Think of or make up another borderline case and discuss what it reveals.

3. Stace says that moral responsibility requires determinism? Why does he say this? In addition, he claims to show how his view of compatibilism is quite consistent with punishment. What is his argument? In Clockwork Orange, Alex volunteers for the Ludivico treatment (or does he?) Are the government officials and doctors compatibilists?

4. What is the attitude of the Libertarian/Free Will position towards universal causation? Why do they take this view? Campbell distinguishes between the Self* and Character. Show how this is suppose to work? What makes the Self/Agent free? What evidence supports this view? From a film, fiction or your own imagination describe a situation which appears to support the Campbell-Chisholm view of free will?

*In the text, the Self is called the Agent.

I. Holbach argues that we always act on our strongest desire. Kowalski gives what he takes to be a counter example, 281. He asks you to imagine that what you most want to do next week end is go to a Packer game at Lambeau Field (cuz they're playing the Vikings for the Central Division Championship), and that it is your first opportunity to do so. "However, weeks before, the tickets became available you promised to take your brother to the airport on that day. Because you cannot find alternative arrangements, you keep your promise and pass up the opportunity to do what you want to do the most. Therefore, it is false that human nature is such that we necessarily act on our strongest desire."

1. Do you think this really is a counter example, or do you think that Holbach is right? (Don't get hung up too much on this particular example; the crucial thing is the claim that we often do that which we see as our duty rather than doing that which we most want to do (our strongest desire.

2. Even if you do think that this is a counter example, do you think it shows that determinism isn't true?

II. Kowalski interprets The Matrix as denying that we ever have free choice in three different ways, 276-277. The first of these is the suggestion that we are mere "cogs in a greater machine" or, to use another metaphor, we all have rolls to play in the great scheme of things. One way we perhaps "play a role" is to get our life projects or our "purpose in life" FROM The Matrix. "Smith informs Neo (in one of the scenes we watched) that, as a result of their last tangle Smith is no longer an agent of the system. He is 'unplugged' and new 'man' and seemingly 'free' like Neo. But this comes as a price, Smith no longer has a purpose. In bringing about Smith's freedom, Neo has taken away Smith's purpose." He then says, "We are not here because we are free, we are here because we are not free." 274-275. And Kowalski concluding interpretation is. "Our purpose cannot be denied."Now obviously the film is trying to say something about OUR LIVES, but what?1.11 Why would PURPOSE take away freedom? How does it do so in the film, and how might it do so in our own lives.

2. How would you argue that this interpretation of purpose is wrong, i.e., that it does not constitute a denial of our freedom?

III. Compatibilists (or Soft Determinists) claim that we can have our determinism and our freedom too; they are compatible. For them, both Hard Determinists and Libertarians have the wrong concept of freedom. In short, free acts are those which are immediately caused by our own psychological states (our own wishes, wants, desires, motives, etc.) We are not free when we are compelled or coerced to act by outside forces - mainly other people. So, Gandhi was free when he went on a hunger strike although doing so was caused by his intent to make a political protest. Bill was not free to go since he was handcuffed to the chair. We are morally responsible when the our own desires and wishes bring about our actions; indeed moral responsibility requires that our acts be cause by our own psychological states.

1. Do you think this common sense or ordinary language approach works? How would a hard determinist reply?

2. If someone with a gun holds you up in the UMD parking lot tonight and says, "Gimme your purse (wallet.)" is the act of handing it over free or not