HKU PHIL1012 Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinism 2024 PDF

PHIL1012: Mind & Knowledge Lecture 7, 05/11/2024 Free will and Determinism Tutorial question: What’s the most defensible compatibilist account of freedom? Reading ‘What Mary Didn’t Know’, Frank Jackson Paper! Due Nov. 19 by 1159 pm  Writing a philosophy paper http://www.jimpr...

PHIL1012: Mind & Knowledge Lecture 7, 05/11/2024 Free will and Determinism Tutorial question: What’s the most defensible compatibilist account of freedom? Reading ‘What Mary Didn’t Know’, Frank Jackson Paper! Due Nov. 19 by 1159 pm  Writing a philosophy paper http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/ writing.html Main thing: Focus on arguments for/against positions. Leave out autobiography, biography, etc. Leap right in: “It appears that if determinism is true, then no one ever acts of their own free will. This paper argues that the apparent conflict between determinism and free will is an illusion…” Writing a philosophy paper Play devil’s advocate. “I have argued that omniscience and freedom are genuinely incompatible. However, one might object that knowledge of future facts does not in general inhibit anyone’s freedom. For example, I know that if my wife and I go out to eat at an Italian restaurant, she will order the tiramisu. Intuitively, this knowledge does not interfere with her ability to freely choose the tiramisu. Why, then, would an omniscient being’s knowledge of this same fact prevent my wife from exercising her freedom to choose the dessert she pleases?” Don’t attack a “straw man.” “Believers in “agent causation” think that uncaused actions are free. But free actions do not lack causes; it’s rather that they are caused in the right way…” Writing a philosophy paper Make the structure of your paper obvious. Use connective words: because, since, given this argument thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently nevertheless, however, but in the first case, on the other hand Writing a philosophy paper Make structure obvious. What you’ve done and what you’re going to do next: I will begin by... Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to... These passages suggest that... I will now defend this claim... Further support for this claim comes from... For example... Most of us believe we have free will The belief matters to… Our view of ourselves as being able to plan for the future, set goals, and so forth. Bc what happens to us in the future is at least to some extent up to us (we think). Our moral appraisals. Some actions are praiseworthy, some blameworthy. Some inspire resentment, some admiration Sometimes people deserve what they get, other times life is unfair. All of this seems to hinge on the assumption that we are capable of free action.  Freedom and omniscience A reply: There is no omniscient being. Unfortunately this doesn’t rescue freedom since freedom seems to conflict with something far less controversial.  Determinism Every event has a cause. A cause = An earlier event that makes a later event happen. Note that our descriptions of what causes what are usually a kind of shorthand: “Striking the match caused it to light.” How can that be denied? Uncaused events: Inconceivable vs. very unlikely Sider’s reason: The March of Science. Science has explained much: changing seasons, movement of planets, inner workings of plants and animals. It does this by seeking the underlying the causes of things. Technological advances too are due to Do our decisions feel caused? Perhaps not, but it’s that they’re caused that’s a consequence of Determinism, not that they feel that way.  Determinism Take some allegedly free action: My eating a veggie burger for lunch yesterday. By Determinism, this has a cause. No problem yet. Why not? Could be that my decision to eat the burger causes my eating of the burger. Determinism vs. freedom … c2  c1  c  the decision  the veggie burger eating. The final few events look like they are ones under my control. But the earlier ones do not, for as we move back in time, we eventually reach events before my birth. So it’s this consequence of Determinism that’s troubling: anything anyone does is caused by events that occurred before he or she was born. And so: caused by events that are not under his or her control. But it seems that no one can be free in these  Determinism’s challenge If every event has a cause, i.e. a preceding event whose occurrence makes it such that the the caused event had to happen, then freedom is impossible. No one has control over events that precede their births; yet, by determinism, these events determine everything a person does.  Determinism’s challenge: the physics version “Any action or decision involves the motion of subatomic particles in one’s body and brain.” “These move acc. to the laws of physics.” Physics lets us calculate the future positions of the particles from: Info about the previous states of the particles. Info about the forces acting on the particles. But then in principle someone could have, using physics, calculated the present positions of all the particles 300 years ago, before any of us was born. Determinism is not fatalism Fatalism is the view that everything must happen as it does in fact. Determinism is the view that later events are caused by earlier ones. If the earlier ones are different, the later ones can be.  Options (1) Deny free will. (Hard determinism) Problem: Out goes rational planning for the future along with the whole of morality. Damage control? Society might still punish criminals…and yet… Also: Can we deny free will? (2) Deny determinism. (Libertarianism) Slogan: people are special. They and they alone are not governed by exceptionless causal laws. Problem: Uncaused acts don’t seem to be what we’re after. Mother Theresa Case Suppose Mother Teresa discovers a hand-grenade in an orphanage in Calcutta. As you might expect, she picks up the hand-grenade in order to dispose of it safely. But now an utterly uncaused event occurs: to her horror, her hand suddenly pulls out the pin and throws the grenade into the heart of the orphanage. The grenade explodes, resulting in mayhem and destruction. Her hand simply flew up from absolutely no cause whatsoever. This clearly is not a free action. We could not blame Mother Teresa; she is the victim of a cruel accident.  Agent causation? The problem: distinguish between free undetermined action and randomness. Free actions are not uncaused; they are caused by us. But does this solve the problem? Belief-desire psychology Anti-scientific. Human beings are a part of the natural world. But if there’s agent causation, there there are physical events that science can’t explain  Probabilistic laws? Some scientific theories do not appeal to deterministic laws. Will this help? Sider says no. Why? Bc “Randomness is not freedom.”  Probabilistic laws? Law: Given such and such antecedents, the decision, D, will occur 80% of the time. Sider’s thought experiment. “What good then is agent causation? It seems to mindlessly follow the probabilities, having no effect of its own on the distribution of outcomes. This sort of agent causation is empty; it adds nothing to freedom or responsibility.”  Options (3) Deny there’s a clash. (Compatibilism/Soft Determinism) The boy who thinks it’s part of the definition of ‘man’ that men don’t cry. Should he give up the belief that his father is crying or the belief that his father is a man? Compare: Should we give up our belief in determinism or our belief in freedom? In the case of the boy: Neither! In the case of determinism/freedom: Neither too. Determinism seems to conflict with freedom but only because we have a faulty conception of freedom.  Is compatibilism counterintuitive? In the crying/being a man case it’s easy to see that the apparent clash stems from a conceptual confusion. Not so for the determinism/free will clash. Resolving the conflict seems harder. Or does it??  A philosophy experiment Imagine a universe (Universe A) in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. This is true from the very beginning of the universe, so what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next, and so on right up until the present. For example, one day John decided to have French Fries at lunch. Like everything else, this decision was completely caused by what happened before it. So, if everything in this universe was exactly the same up until John made his decision, then it had to happen that  A philosophy experiment In Universe A, a man named Bill has become attracted to his secretary, and he decides that the only way to be with her is to kill his wife and 3 children. He knows that it is impossible to escape from his house in the event of a fire. Before he leaves on a business trip, he sets up a device in his basement that burns down the house and kills his family. Is Bill fully morally responsible for killing his wife and children?  A philosophy experiment In Universe A, is it possible for a person to be fully morally responsible for their actions?  The result Is Bill fully morally responsible for killing his wife and children? 72% of subjects say that he is! Is it possible for a person to be fully morally responsible for their actions? 86% of subjects say no!  To be free For our actions to lack causes. This clearly does conflict with determinism. For our actions to be caused in the right way. Complaint: Why should it matter how our actions are caused if they are caused by events occurring before our births? But we do treat causes differently. The football analogy. Morality has rules—these rules treat some causes differently than others.  To be free For our actions to be caused by our beliefs and desires. The hypnotist kidnapper case: He hypnotizes you into not only killing the victim but wanting to kill the victim. For our actions to be caused by our beliefs and desires provided that those beliefs and desires are freely chosen. Circular. And wrong.  To be free For our actions to be caused by our beliefs and desires provided that we are not compelled by another to have those beliefs and desires. ‘Compelled’? Compelled = caused? But other people cause us to have all sorts of beliefs and desires! And not all compulsion is by another person. Kleptomania  To be free For our actions to be caused by our beliefs and desires provided that those beliefs and desires flow from ‘who we are’. Kidnapper hypnotizes me into wanting to poison the victim. But this desire is “out of character” for me. 1st-order vs. 2nd-order desires. You desire to spend all your nights drinking but you also desire (2nd order) not to have this (1st order) desire.  Problems Not all uncharacteristic actions are unfree. Two ways of changing who one is: Brainwashing case. Moral transformation. How to distinguish the two?