Section 3.2
The Mother of Invention
Freedom as Necessity
McGraw-Hill
© 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.
The Dilemma of Determinism and
Indeterminism
 If causal determinism is true, then we
cannot act freely because everything we
do is caused by forces beyond our
control.
 If causal indeterminism is true, then
again we cannot act freely because
random movements are not up to us.
3.2-2
Compatibilism (Soft
Determinism)
 Compatibilists (soft determinists) believe
that causal determinism is compatible
with free will.
 In this view, one’s actions can be both
causally determined and free.
3.2-3
Principle of Alternative
Possibilities
 The Principle of Alternative Possibilities says that
one can be held responsible for doing something
only if one could have done otherwise.
 The different paths in this “garden of forking paths”
represent the different courses of action that you
can take at a particular point in time.
3.2-4
Thought Experiment: Locke’s
Trapped Conversationalist
 “Suppose a man is carried, while
fast asleep, into a room, where
there is a person he longs to see
and speak with; and suppose he
is locked in the room…”
 In this case, the man’s action is
voluntary because he’s doing
what he wants to do but,
according to the principle of
alternative possibilities, it’s not
free because he couldn’t leave if
he wanted to.
3.2-5
The Conditional Analysis of “could
have done otherwise”
 Traditional compatibilists offer a
conditional analysis of "could have done
otherwise:" you could have done
otherwise just in case if you had chosen
to do otherwise, then you would have
done otherwise.
 On this view, even if an action was
caused by forces beyond your control, it
could still be considered a free action.
3.2-6
Traditional Compatibilism
 Traditional compatibilism is the doctrine
that free actions are (1) caused by one’s
will and (2) not externally constrained.
 Traditional compatibilists define freedom
negatively; freedom consists in the
absence of external constraint or
coercion.
3.2-7
Punishment
 Punishment has traditionally been
justified on the grounds of (i) retribution,
(ii) rehabilitation, (iii) or deterrence.
 Compatibilists cannot justify punishment
on the grounds of retribution because,
on their view, what people do is not up to
them.
3.2-8
Prepunishment
 Prepunishment is punishing someone for
a crime before they commit it.
 Because compatibilists believe that all of
our actions are caused by forces beyond
our control, they have no principled
reason for not allowing prepunishment
when someone’s committing a crime can
be accurately predicted.
3.2-9
Thought Probe: Minority
Report
 The movie Minority Report depicts a
society that practices prepunishment.
 Should prepunishment be practiced if
people’s behavior can be accurately
predicted? Why or why not?
3.2-10
Thought Probe: Guilty Minds
and Pre-Crime
 Neuroscientists have developed a brain
scanning technique that allows them to
read people’s intentions.
 Should people with the intention to
commit a crime—a guilty mind—be
locked up before they commit it? Why or
why not?
3.2-11
Thought Experiment: Taylor’s
Ingenious Physiologist
 “Suppose…that while my
behavior is entirely in
accordance with my own
volitions…my volitions
themselves are caused
[by an ingenious
physiologist]”.
 In this case Taylor’s
actions meet both
conditions of traditional
compatibilism, but are not
free.
3.2-12
Thought Experiment: Taylor’s
Drug Addiction
 Suppose one is given a
compulsive desire for a
drug.
 The drug addict’s
subsequent behavior
would fulfill both
conditions of traditional
compatibilism.
 Nevertheless, it would not
be free.
3.2-13
Thought Probe: Religious
Cults
 People who join religious cults
often acquire a whole new set
of beliefs and desires.
 Parents often try to forcibly
rescue them on the grounds
that the cult has taken away
their free will.
 Could a compatibilist justify
such a rescue? Why or why
not?
3.2-14
Thought Probe: The
Manchurian Candidate
 MKULTRA was a secret program conducted by
the CIA that tried to brainwash unsuspecting
subjects into doing the agency’s bidding.
 Suppose it’s possible to implant new beliefs and
desires into someone by using brainwashing
techniques.
 According to compatibilism, would that person
be acting freely when he was following orders?
Why or why not?
3.2-15
Thought Probe: Brain
Stimulation
 Neurophysiologist Jose Delgado
developed a device called a
“stimoceiver” that could monitor
and control brain activity.
 If Delgado’s stimoceiver could
make people more productive
and well-adjusted, could a
compatibilist object to using it?
Why or why not?
3.2-16
First-order Desires
 A desire directed on an object or a state
of affairs.
 For example, desires for food, clothing,
and shelter as well as conditions like
being healthy, wealthy, and wise are
first-order desires.
3.2-17
Second-order Desires
 A desire that is directed on a first-order
desire.
 For example, a desire not to desire to
smoke is a second-order desire.
3.2-18
Second-order Volitions
 A second-order volition is a second order
desire on which one wants to act.
3.2-19
Hierarchical Compatibilism
 The theory that free actions are caused
by second-order volitions that one
decisively identifies with.
 This view is known as hierarchical
compatibilism because it is based on the
belief that there is a hierarchy of desires
and volitions.
3.2-20
Thought Experiment: Frankfurt’s
Unwilling and Wanton Addicts
 Consider two addicts:
the unwilling addict
desires not to have the
desire to take drugs
and the wanton addict
has never thought
about his drug habit.
 According to Frankfurt,
neither act freely-because neither are
acting on second order
volitions.
3.2-21
Thought Experiment:
Frankfurt’s Happy Addict
 Consider an addict who has reflected on
his addiction and has decided that he
likes being addicted to drugs.
 According to Frankfurt, even if this addict
could not stop taking drugs, his action is
free because he is acting on a second
order volition.
3.2-22
Thought Experiment: Frankfurt’s
Decision Inducer
 In this thought experiment, Frankfurt
challenges the principle of alternative
possibilities.
 Suppose that Black monitors Jones’s
behavior and is prepared to alter it if Jones
doesn’t behave as Black wants him to.
 Black insures that Jones couldn’t do
otherwise than he does.
 Does Jones act freely?
3.2-23
Thought Experiment: Slote’s
Hypnotized Patient
 Suppose that someone had a second-
order volition implanted in him by a
hypnotist.
 In that case, acting on a second-order
volition would not make the act free.
3.2-24
Ultimate Responsibility
 Our actions flow from our character and
motives.
 If we did not have a hand in shaping our
character and motives, we are not
ultimately responsible for the actions that
flow from them.
3.2-25
Thought Probe: The Willing
Bank Teller
 Suppose that you are a bank teller and
are held up at gun point. You decide that
heroics are out of the question and hand
over the money.
 According to Frankfurt, do you act
freely? Why or why not?
3.2-26