Philosophy of Free Will and Race PDF

Determinism: Determinism posits that all events, including human choices, are the inevitable consequences of prior causes. This suggests a chain of cause and e;ect where everything that happens is predetermined. Fatalism (Metaphysical & Theological Varieties): ○ Metaphysical fatalism claims that al...

Determinism: Determinism posits that all events, including human choices, are the inevitable consequences of prior causes. This suggests a chain of cause and e;ect where everything that happens is predetermined. Fatalism (Metaphysical & Theological Varieties): ○ Metaphysical fatalism claims that all events are predetermined and fixed, regardless of causes or choices. It suggests that there are no open possibilities and the future is already set, as explored through arguments like the Sea Battle Argument. ○ Theological fatalism connects the predetermined nature of events to divine foreknowledge, implying that God's knowledge of future events fixes their outcome. (Metaphysical) Libertarianism: Libertarianism argues that humans have genuine free will, meaning their choices are not causally predetermined and they have the power to act di;erently than they do. This perspective rejects the idea that prior causes dictate our actions, emphasizing the capacity for autonomous choice. Hard Determinism: Hard determinism contends that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined, leaving no room for free will. This perspective views free will as an illusion and suggests that our choices are ultimately the result of factors beyond our control. Soft Determinism: Soft Determinism, also known as compatibilism, attempts to reconcile free will and determinism. It suggests that even if our actions are causally determined, we can still have free will as long as those actions originate from our own desires and motivations. Hard Determinism and Punishment: While the sources don't explicitly discuss punishment, it logically follows from the definition of hard determinism that if free will is an illusion, traditional punishment may not be justified. If our actions are predetermined, individuals might not be morally responsible for their actions in the way they would be if they had genuine free will. Section 2: Divine Foreknowledge and Fatalism Divine Foreknowledge: Divine foreknowledge refers to God's complete and perfect knowledge of all events, past, present, and future. Argument for Divine Foreknowledge Entailing Fatalism: The sources present an argument that if God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, then the future is fixed and fatalism is true. The reasoning is that if God knows a future event with absolute certainty, that event must happen; otherwise, God's knowledge would be fallible. Section 3: Metaphysics of Race  Biological Realism: Biological realism proposes that racial categories are based on actual, objective biological di;erences, much as biologists classify animals. This view emphasizes genetic di;erences between racial groups, suggesting these di;erences warrant the classification of distinct races. ○ Arguments for biological realism: Proponents of this view often cite morphological di;erences, like skin color, as evidence for underlying genetic variations that justify racial categorization. Additionally, they point to health disparities among racial groups, suggesting a biological basis for these di;erences. ○ Arguments against biological realism: Critics argue that genetic variation within racial groups often exceeds the variation between them, weakening the argument for distinct biological categories. They also highlight that social and historical factors, like migration and interbreeding, complicate attempts to define clear-cut racial boundaries based on genetics. Social Constructivism: Social constructivism argues that race is not a biological reality but rather a social construct. It asserts that racial categories are created and maintained by human societies, often to establish social hierarchies and power dynamics. ○ Arguments for social constructivism: Evidence for this view comes from the historical and cultural variability in racial classifications, demonstrating how di;erent societies define race based on diverse, often arbitrary, criteria. The fluid and context-dependent nature of racial categories, as opposed to fixed biological categories, further supports the idea that race is a social construct. ○ Arguments against social constructivism: Some counter that while social factors shape our understanding of race, underlying biological di;erences may still contribute to the concept of race. They acknowledge that racial categories are not perfect or absolute, but maintain that a biological element to race cannot be disregarded entirely. Eliminativism: Eliminativism contends that racial categories lack a real basis and should be eliminated entirely. It posits that the concept of race relies on false assumptions about human biological diversity and that continuing to use it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and inequalities. ○ Arguments for eliminativism: This view emphasizes the ethical implications of using racial categories, arguing that it contributes to racism and discrimination. Eliminativists believe that abandoning racial classifications would promote a more just and equitable society where individuals are not judged based on perceived racial di;erences. ○ Arguments against eliminativism: Opponents argue that eliminating racial categories may not solve the underlying social problems of racism and inequality. They suggest that race, despite not being a natural kind, is a lived experience that shapes many people's lives and identities, making it problematic to simply ignore.