Introduction To Philosophy Assignment

Phil201 1205a 04 Introduction To Philosophyassignmentnameunit 4 Indi

For this paper, you will write a dialogue between you and an imaginary Socrates. You will debate the question of free will versus determinism. Remember that the Socratic Method involves asking a series of questions to clarify key words and ideas. In your dialogue, the imaginary Socrates should be asking clarifying questions, and you will be answering them. Please refer to the excerpt from Plato’s Meno as an example (below).

This paper should be 4–6 pages. Your dialogue should address the following questions: What is the definition of determinism? What is the definition of free will? Do you agree that every event has an explanatory cause? How do you define event? How do you define explanatory cause? Do you agree that every human choice or event has an explanatory cause? How do you define human choice? How do you define human event? Are they different? Do you agree that to have an explanatory cause is to not be free? How do you define free? Do you think that free will and determinism can coexist in any way? Is it possible to have external determinism and internal free will? To have cohesion and reach solid conclusions, your imaginary Socrates will probably ask you more questions than the ones listed above.

Be sure to include all of the above ideas in your dialogue. Your dialogue should also include all of the following: Use of the Socratic Method to form all conclusions (this will be achieved by the question and answer dialogue between you and the imaginary Socrates) Clear and concise language, using proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation Correct definitions of free will and determinism Logical explanations and valid reasoning for each conclusion Clear answers to each question with a definite stance or position You must reach a conclusive answer to each question 4–6 pages in length The following is an excerpt from Plato's Meno (Soccio, 1995): Socrates : …Do not all men…desire the good? Meno : I think not. Socrates : There are some who desire evil? Meno : Yes. Socrates : Do you mean that they think the evils which they desire, to be good; or do they know that they are evil and yet desire them? Meno : Both, I think. Socrates : And do you really imagine, Meno, that a man knows evils to be evils and desires them notwithstanding? Meno : Certainly I do. Socrates : And desire is [for] possession? Meno : Yes, [for] possession… Socrates : Well, and do those who, as they say, desire evils, and think that evils are hurtful to the possessor of them, know that they will be hurt by them? Meno : They must know it. Socrates : And must they not suppose that those who are hurt are miserable in proportion to the hurt which is inflicted upon them? Meno : How can it be otherwise? Socrates : But are not the miserable ill-fated? Meno : Yes, indeed. Socrates: And does any one desire to be miserable and ill-fated? Meno : I should say not, Socrates. Socrates : But if there is no one who desires to be miserable, there is no one, Meno, who desires evil; for what is misery but the desire and possession of evil? Meno : That appears to be the truth, Socrates, and I admit that nobody desires evil.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemplating the profound philosophical debate between free will and determinism, one must first clearly define these concepts and examine their implications on human agency and moral responsibility. The dialogue with Socrates serves as an effective pedagogical method to explore these ideas, emphasizing the importance of asking clarifying questions to reach deeper understanding. This essay constructs a hypothetical Socratic dialogue to examine whether human actions are truly free or dictated by prior causes, and whether these positions are mutually exclusive or can coexist.

Defining Determinism and Free Will

Determining the meaning of determinism involves understanding it as the doctrine that all events, including human actions, are determined by antecedent causes—a consequence of the causal chain in the universe. From a philosophical perspective, determinism posits that given the state of the universe at a particular time, only one future is possible (Kane, 2011). This implies that every event, including human choices, results inevitably from preceding conditions, leaving no room for randomness or chance. The implications of determinism extend into moral philosophy, raising questions about moral responsibility if our actions are preordained (Nahmias et al., 2014).

Conversely, free will is generally defined as the capacity of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints—particularly causal constraints—allowing them to have acted differently under identical circumstances (Kane, 2011). It emphasizes human autonomy and moral accountability, presupposing that individuals possess the power to select among alternatives based on their desires, intentions, and reasons. However, debates persist regarding the scope and limits of free will, especially in the context of neuroscientific findings suggesting that unconscious processes often precede conscious decision-making (Libet, 1985).

Explanatory Causes and Human Agency

An event, in a philosophical context, can be defined as any occurrence that has a definite beginning and end within the temporal realm. Explanatory causes are factors or conditions that account for why an event occurs—essentially, the reasons behind it (Wesley, 2018). The question arises whether every human choice or event has an explanatory cause; many argue that they do, rooted in prior circumstances, environmental influences, genetic predispositions, or psychological states (Dowe, 2000). For example, a person's decision to lie might be explained by their fear of punishment or desire for reward. These causes shape the possibility of moral evaluation—if actions are caused by prior factors, then responsibility might be questioned (Nahmias et al., 2014).

Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility

The relationship between explanatory causes and free will is complex. If every human action has a cause, some argue that this undermines free will, rendering individuals merely passive recipients of antecedent conditions. However, compatibilists contend that free will can exist in a deterministic universe if freedom is understood as acting according to one's desires and intentions without external coercion (Frankfurt, 1969). They propose that as long as choices stem from internal motivations aligned with one’s character, the acts are free, even if their causes are antecedent (Taylor, 1964).

Defining free in the context of free will involves understanding 'libertarian freedom'—the ability to have chosen otherwise—and distinguishing it from mere spontaneity or randomness. Many philosophers argue that true free will requires that agents are the ultimate originators of their actions, a stance challenged by deterministic paradigms. Moreover, the possibility of external determinism coexisting with internal free will depends on whether internal agency can be autonomous of external causal influences, raising questions about internal versus external sources of causality (Harry, 2002).

Can Free Will and Determinism Coexist?

Exploring whether free will and determinism can coexist involves examining compatibilism versus incompatibilism. Compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism, emphasizing internal agency and decision-making processes devoid of external coercion. In contrast, incompatibilists maintain that if causality determines every action, genuine freedom is impossible. External determinism—where external factors influence choices—may still permit internal free will if individuals possess the capacity for internal reflection and intentionality that guides decision-making (Kane, 2011).

It is conceivable, then, that external determinants set the conditions in which choices occur, but internal mental states—desires, intentions, reasoning—serve as the causal forces that produce free actions. This nuanced view suggests a layered model of causality, integrating external and internal factors, perhaps aligning more with compatibilist thought than strict libertarian free will (Frankfurt, 1969). Ultimately, the debate hinges on whether causality constrains or merely conditions human agency.

Conclusion

The dialogue with Socrates reveals that the definitions of free will and determinism hinge on complex philosophical issues surrounding causality, moral responsibility, and the nature of human agency. While determinism entails that all events have causes, this does not necessarily negate the existence of free will if freedom is defined as acting according to one’s internal motivations without external coercion. A compatibilist perspective suggests that free will and determinism can coexist in a layered causal reality that acknowledges both external influences and internal autonomy.

In essence, the philosophical challenge is to reconcile the causal necessity of all events with our intuitive sense of moral responsibility and personal agency. The most coherent stance might be that human actions are determined by prior causes, but individuals can still be considered free insofar as their choices are aligned with their internal desires and rational deliberations. This nuanced understanding fosters a more comprehensive view of human morality and responsibility within a causally determined universe.

References

• Dowe, P. (2000). Physical Causation. Cambridge University Press.
• Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, 66(23), 829-839.
• Harry, G. (2002). Human Agency and Determinism. Routledge.
• Kane, R. (2011). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
• Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral sources of subjective timing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-541.
• Nahmias, D., et al. (2014). Disodance and responsibility: New perspectives. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 88(3), 747-775.
• Soccio, D. (1995). The Discoveries of Philosophy. HarperCollins.
• Taylor, R. (1964). Freedom and Determinism. Cambridge University Press.
• Wesley, K. (2018). Causality and Explanation in Philosophy. Routledge.
• Kane, R. (2011). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press.