The Argument for Incompatibilism

The Argument for Incompatibilism

Introduction

Most of the debates that philosophers have are not new, and one of such issues includes the problem of free will and determinism. This paper details the two individually plausible but jointly incompatible theses, which is free will and determinism. The paper starts with identifying the thesis of determinism, the thesis of free will and the notion of “physically possible future” and how the notion is used in giving precise formulation of determines and free will. The next is reasons science give for believing that determinism is at least possible. Then, reasons for believing that we have free will, the thesis of incompatibilism, and finally, the argument for incompatibility.

The thesis of Determinism and Free Will

Determinism is the thesis that there is precisely one physically possible future at any given moment. It states that past conditions and the laws of nature determine everything that happens. On the other hand, the fact that there are alternative courses of action that one can act freely on particular occasion only if that action is not the only one that could have been taken on that same occasion (Cover and Garns 359). Determinism and free will are theses that have tension for several decades and philosophers have spent their precious time to help explain each concept.

Taking this exam today can be explained as a decision that I made out of many other alternatives that were there for me. While I could have chosen any other course, I decided to settle for philosophy 3000 metaphysics, and that is free will. However, determinism states that there must be something that prompted my decision of taking this course and not my free will. Either way, there are justifiable facts that help in formulating determinism and free will. A good example is a notion of “physically possible future” is defined as “… a future way things could be given the actual past (P) and the laws of nature (L)” (Cover and Garns 367). This shows that what happens in the future can be predicted based on the past and the laws of nature and that is what determinism means. However, this conflicts the fact that people plan for their future because they believe that their actions today have a close bearing of their future, which is what free will thesis describes; the existence of alternatives. If I choose to read for my metaphysics exam, I will pass better, but if I decide to face the exam without reading, I will fail. In that case, I have to make a decision early enough to read and influence the future, which is the result of the exams.

Cover and Garns points out that while it is possible for a tree that is physically 10 meters tall to be 35 meters tall in the next 15 years, it is physically impossible to have the same tree being 35 meters tall next week. This is consistent with determinism that the present is fixed. The concept of physically possible future is that the tree is expected to grow and not remain stagnant at 10 meters. It would be possible to say that if the determinism thesis is true, then there will only be one physically possible future. On the other hand, if the free will thesis is true, then there will be alternative physically possible futures.

Reasons science provide to believe that Determinism is at least possibly true

The reason that science gives to believe that determinism is at least possible is on the deductive nomological where the occurrence of particular events are deduced from propositions that express the law of nature as well as prior conditions (Cover and Garns 370). Human beings do not know specific facts of the universe or the laws that would help in making an accurate prediction of the future. It is from such restriction of human that determinism can at least be true because the limitation of human knowledge is what results in chance while there no opportunities from a scientific perspective. Human weaknesses are what create the many alternatives because it is not possible to determine laws that dictate the actions of the future. This weakness, however, does not change the fact that there are single events such as an exact number of heirs in a human head or the exact time a rocket would take. Based on this scientific explanation, it is possible to “see” that determinism is at least possibly true.

Reasons for believing that we have Free will

Nearly everyone tends to think that they are free and that their actions and behaviour is out of their own choices. People deliberate before making a decision on what to pursue because there are alternatives to choose from, and this shows that free will is somehow true. People are careful when deciding because they believe the future actions are under their control (Cover and Garns 364). Free will is therefore true because deliberation shows that our efforts are not dictated by the consequences some outside our control. In that case, everyone is directly responsible for their future based on their current actions. If this were not true, then there would not be

Thesis of incompatibilism

Incompatibilism is the thesis that the thesis of determinism and that of free will cannot be both true. In that case, when determinism is true, then there is nothing like free will. On the other hand, if free will turns out to be accurate, then determinism does not exist.

The argument for incompatibilism

The argument for incompatibilism states that when determinism thesis is found to be true, then the free will thesis is false (Cover and Garns 374). The same happens when the free will is true then determinism cannot exist. It is not possible to have the two theses being true at the same time. This consequence is considered incompatibilism.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of determinism and free will, it is understandable why it has been an area of debate for several decades now. The two theses are individually plausible but can be seen to be jointly incompatible. Free will thesis demonstrates that people sometimes act of their own free will. Determinism, on the other hand, presents a thesis that every future state in the world is already fixed based on the past and the laws of nature. However, these two theses are mutually incompatible as it is not possible to have determinism thesis at the same time have free will thesis, hence the incompatibility argument.

Works Cited

Cover J.A. and Garns. R.L.  Theories of Knowledge and Reality, Mc-Graw Hill Custom College Series