Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
W.T. Stace
1) If there is no free will, then there can be no morality.
a) One of the main principles of morality: ought implies can.
i) If we can’t, then we can have no ought.
b) If we do not have free will, and therefore no morality, then should we be punished for
certain acts?
2) Stace believes the free will/determinism dispute is merely verbal.
a) This dispute stems from a confusion about the meaning of the term ‘free will’.
b) The way to solve this dispute is to use the correct definition of free will.
c) We arrive at a correct definition of a term when its usage accords with a common usage
of the term.
i) According to Stace, “common usage is the criterion for deciding whether a definition is
correct or not” (314).
ii) Philosophers use the term ‘free will’ in a peculiar way when they use it to imply that actions
are not determined by causes.
3) Common definition of ‘free will’.
a) All free actions are caused by psychological states within an agent.
b) Acts not freely done are those that are caused by external events.
c) To deny free will is nonsense.
4) Punishment
a) Determinism is not incompatible with punishment or responsibility.
i) Just because a person is determined to act in a particular manner does not exempt her from
being punished.
ii) Punishment corrects a wrongdoer’s character and/or deters others from becoming a
wrongdoer.
iii) How does punishment correct a persons character?
iv) So, determinism actually requires punishment.
My thought: If determinism requires that there be punishment, how would a libertarian conceive of
punishment? It seems that if we are completely free (self-determined), then all we would need is to
understand and assent to justifications for a particular moral duty. We would need no incentives in the
way of punishments or rewards. We could make ourselves moral beings just by accepting moral
principles.
Nancy Holstrom