Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 23, 2017

Experience and the Argument Against Human Freedom

David K. Clark
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

The heart of this essay, presented in part II, is an attempt to break the longstanding gridlock of the determinism/free-will controversy. Part I sets the table by examining recent attempts to refine and resolve this controversy. For example, Fischer’s groundbreaking case for semi-compatibilism seeks to soften the devastating impact of incompatibilism by arguing that while metaphysical (libertarian) freedom is indeed incompatible with determinism, human responsibility is not. But Fischer’s ingenious application of Frankfort-like examples simply cannot rescue any relevant notion of human responsibility. Rather, Fischer’s resourceful argumentation guides us to a pivotal realization. Kane’s Principle of Alternative Possibilities (the longstanding “could have done otherwise” necessary condition for human freedom aka Fischer’s “Leeway Principle”) is false. Thus, any successful attack against metaphysical freedom must target the “source-hood” thesis – an indeterministic agency theory of metaphysical freedom – the very idea of which is rejected by Hume, Nietzsche, Fischer et al as simply incoherent. But I argue that these philosophers are surely mistaken about the literal incoherence of the source-hood premise. Consequently, the current debate cannot move us beyond the frustration faced so squarely by Kant: we just can’t find a way to advance the case for or against metaphysical freedom. In Part II, I urge that an appeal to the a posteriori data of experience is sufficient to decisively resolve this recalcitrant impasse. This a posteriori evidence I argue, reveals that the thesis of metaphysical freedom is surely false. There is no human freedom; and neither are humans morally responsible for their choices. The supportive case supplied here will seek to rehabilitate Schopenhauer’s proclamation that while “man can do what he wants, he cannot will what he wants.” [1] I believe this claim is importantly correct; but as it stands, it obviously begs the question. Therefore, this essay will attempt to present both a compelling defense of Schopenhauer’s dictum, as well as the supplementary insight which makes philosophical capital of that defense. My central thesis, universally confirmed by experience, is that what we want most causes us to choose accordingly. It is not physically possible to choose otherwise than in accord with what we desire most strongly; but this efficacious desire is never itself chosen; it is instead always already given. The full argument follows.

References

Austin, J. 1966. “Ifs and Cans.” In Free Will and Determinism, edited by Bernard Berofsky, New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar

Chisolm, R. 1995. “Agents, Causes and Events: The Problem of Free Will.” In Agents Causes and Events: Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will, edited by O’Connor, New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, D.K. 2004. Empirical Realism: Meaning and the Generative Foundation of Morality. Lanham: Lexington Books.Search in Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 1981. “On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want.” In BrainStorms, edited by Bradford, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1664.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, J.M., R. Kane, D. Pereboom, and M. Vargas. 2007. Four Views on Free Will. Maldon Mass: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Frankfurt, H. 1969. “Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” Journal of Philosophy 66:829–839.10.2307/2023833Search in Google Scholar

Ginet, C. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ginetSearch in Google Scholar

Hobbes, B., J. Bramhall. 1999. Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity, Chappell, ed., New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164207Search in Google Scholar

Kakagiannis, M. 1977. Iphenigia. Athens: Greek Film Center.Search in Google Scholar

Kane, R. 2005. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1964. Metaphysics of the Groundwork of Morals, Patton trs. New York: Harper Tourchbooks.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1981. “Are We Free to Break the Laws?” Theoria 47:113–121.10.1093/0195036468.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Locke, J. 1995. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Prometheus Books.Search in Google Scholar

Nietzsche, F. 1969. “Twilight of the Idols.” In The Portable Nietzsche, edited by Kaufmann, New York: Viking Press.Search in Google Scholar

O’Connor, T. 2003. Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rowe, W.L. 2006. “Free Will Responsibility, and the Problem of Ooomph.” The Journal of Ethics 10 (3):295–313.10.1007/s10892-005-5779-8Search in Google Scholar

Schopenhauer, A. 1974. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Strawson, G. 1986. Freedom and Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Strawson, P. 1962. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48:1–25.10.4324/9780203882566-7Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, R. 1992. Metaphysics, 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Van Inwagen, P. 1983. An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Verlag, G.O. 1895. The Works of Thomas Reid. Edinburgh: James Thin.Search in Google Scholar

Wallace, R.J. 1994. Responsibility and Moral Sentiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-3-23
Published in Print: 2017-9-26

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow