Você está na página 1de 2

Lecture Notes

W.T. Stace & Nancy Holstrum

W.T. Stace
1) If there is no free will, then there can be no morality.
a) One of the main principles of morality: ought implies can.
i) If we can’t, then we can have no ought.
b) If we do not have free will, and therefore no morality, then should we be punished for
certain acts?
2) Stace believes the free will/determinism dispute is merely verbal.
a) This dispute stems from a confusion about the meaning of the term ‘free will’.
b) The way to solve this dispute is to use the correct definition of free will.
c) We arrive at a correct definition of a term when its usage accords with a common usage
of the term.
i) According to Stace, “common usage is the criterion for deciding whether a definition is
correct or not” (314).
ii) Philosophers use the term ‘free will’ in a peculiar way when they use it to imply that actions
are not determined by causes.
3) Common definition of ‘free will’.
a) All free actions are caused by psychological states within an agent.
b) Acts not freely done are those that are caused by external events.
c) To deny free will is nonsense.
4) Punishment
a) Determinism is not incompatible with punishment or responsibility.
i) Just because a person is determined to act in a particular manner does not exempt her from
being punished.
ii) Punishment corrects a wrongdoer’s character and/or deters others from becoming a
wrongdoer.
iii) How does punishment correct a persons character?
iv) So, determinism actually requires punishment.

My thought: If determinism requires that there be punishment, how would a libertarian conceive of
punishment? It seems that if we are completely free (self-determined), then all we would need is to
understand and assent to justifications for a particular moral duty. We would need no incentives in the
way of punishments or rewards. We could make ourselves moral beings just by accepting moral
principles.
Nancy Holstrom

1) Holstrom is a soft determinist.


a) Believes that acts caused by an agent’s beliefs and desires are free acts.
b) Those acts that are not up to the agent are not free.
i) If an agent acts from beliefs or desires that were acquired by brainwashing, hypnosis, or
subliminal advertising, then those acts are not free.
ii) Just because an act is caused by an agent’s belief or desire does not necessarily make it a free
act.
(1) This is how Holstrom intends to correct soft determinism.
c) A truly free act has as its cause a belief or desire that is controlled by the agent.
i) “X…must depend on what I want or on my ‘will’ in order for x to be under my control”
(322).
ii) The more control a person has over her beliefs or desires, the freer she is.
(1) So, freedom is not a dichotomous concept: either you have it or you don’t.
(a) Instead, freedom is a continuum.
2) A necessary condition for a free act is that the act proceed from desires and beliefs that are consistent
with second order volitions.
a) While this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition.
b) A truly free act is one that results from the agent being part of the causal process of
forming the belief or desire.
i) While my friends pressured me into drinking beer, my current desire for beer is one that I
played a part in forming. That is, I like beer not because I like how my friends respond to me
when I’m drinking it, but because I like the taste of the beer. So, my drinking beer is a free
act.
ii) Is my drinking beer a free act if I am an alcoholic?
(1) No! I am not freely choosing to drink beer because I am addicted to alcohol and thereby
compelled to consume it. Also, if I don’t want to be an alcoholic (a second order desire),
then my consuming alcohol is not free…it conflicts with my second order desire.
c) Knowledge is a necessary part of forming a second order desire.
i) People are less free to the extent that they operate on unconscious motives.
ii) In order to be free, we must know the cause of our second order volitions.
(1) And, we must be the cause of our second order volitions.
3) How free are you?
a) The answer to this question depends on who you are and where/when you live.
b) Your freedom is closely tied to social and political freedom and is not a distinct
metaphysical question.
c) While your personal freedom is tied to your social and political freedom, you can influence the
beliefs and desires that these institutions produce.
i) This power to change one’s own social and political environment is only a potential
possibility today and not an actual possibility.
(1) This is because most people don’t realize (actualize) this power.
(2) So, as long as one does not control the social causes of one’s beliefs and desires, one does
not have much chance of controlling the actual beliefs and desires one comes to have.
(a) In order to influence one’s environment, one must have a certain disposition,
sufficient knowledge, and the cooperation of others.
(b) Most people are satisfied with being passive participants in life and are thereby
determined by their social environments.

Você também pode gostar