Rather than seek a formulation of the free will problem that allowsa single, perspicuous demonstration of every possible position adoptedwith respect to it, it is more helpful to think in terms of differentsorts of formulations. These different formulations will involvedifferent considerations pertinent to the sort of freedom that is atissue when theorizing about the conditions for moral responsibility. Inthe following section, two formulations will be presented in the formof two arguments for incompatibilism. Regardless of the specific formthey take, what is central to a proper understanding of them is thatthey emerge from an apparent problematic entangling of concepts thatare a deep part of our conceptual repertoire. These concepts willinclude some subset of the following: freedom, control, person, agency,cause, causal necessity or determination, event, moral responsibility,as well as notions like the past, and a law of nature. Thephilosopher's task is to disentangle these various concepts in a usefuland illuminating manner.
A useful manner of thinking about compatibilism's place incontemporary philosophy is in terms of at least three stages. The firststage involves the classical form defended in the modern era by theempiricists Hobbes and Hume, and reinvigorated in the early part of thetwentieth century. The second stage involves three distinctcontributions in the 1960s, contributions that challenged many of thedialectical presuppositions driving classical compatibilism. The thirdstage involves various contemporary forms of compatibilism, forms thatdiverge from the classical variety and that emerged out of, or resonatewith, at least one of the three contributions found in the secondtransitional stage. This section will be devoted to the first stage,that of classical compatibilism.
Although most of the central claims in Strawson’s essay are important and true, it fails to fill the lacuna in the analysis, discussion and proposals of traditional compatibilism.
Perhaps not surprisingly, an enormous (and intricate) literature hasemerged around the success of Frankfurt's argument and, in particular,around the example Frankfurt offered as contrary to PAP.The debate is very much alive, and no clear victor has emerged (in theway that the incompatibilists can rightly claim to have laid to restthe compatibilists' conditional analysis strategy (see section 3.3)).Regardless, what is most relevant to this essay is that Frankfurt'sargument inspired many compatibilists to begin thinking about accountsof freedom or control that unabashedly turn away from a Garden ofForking Paths model.
Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
One pressing question for Strawsonian compatibilism is how muchemphasis should be placed upon the point of view of those in the moralcommunity who hold others morally responsible. On a strong, andradically anti-metaphysical reading, those in the moral communitydetermine the conditions for when a person is or is not a morallyresponsible agent, as well as whether a person is or is not morallyresponsible for some bit of conduct. On this view, morally responsibleagency is to be extrapolated from the practice of the members of themoral community in holding persons morally responsible. This suggests acompatibilist strategy according to which the freedom required formoral responsibility derives from the normative considerations embracedby the members of the community holding persons responsible. In itsstrongest form, according to this sort of compatibilist approach, thereneed be no threat to freedom or moral responsibility fromdeterminism since a community can construct a set of standardsfor freedom and responsibility that could be satisfied even in adetermined world. Given that the conditions are constructed, they neednot be constrained by prior metaphysical questions concerning thenature of the persons alleged to possess free will. The community will,so to speak, settle matters of what free will is, not the underlyingnature of the person whose free will is at issue. This theme, suggestedin Strawson's famous 1962 essay, is rejected by Jay Wallace inResponsibility and the Moral Sentiments (1994, pp.89–91,and pp.95–103). But Wallace offers an extension of Strawson'sgeneral strategy in terms of moral norms of fairness for holdingresponsible reflected in our moral responsibility practices (1994,pp.103–9). From these moral norms—and not from the merenaturalistic facts that we have these practices—Wallace proceedsto uncover the conditions required for being responsible. Wallace'sposition has emerged as a serious alternative to the sorts ofapproaches to the free will problem that take as their theoreticalstarting point the nature of persons, or the action-theoreticcharacteristics of the process issuing in freely willed action. For abrief discussion of Wallace's proposal, see section D of the supplement“Compatibilism: The State of the Art”.
Compatibilism - dedicated to the new information philosophy
Compatibilism is the philosophy that free will and determinism are actually compatible in nature. Compatibilists tend to believe that it possible for both of them to exist without being logically inconsistent. The theory holds that the theory of determinism is true and that it is possible for volunteer behavior to free to the extent that there are no external constraints being enforced on it.
defending compatibilism | Ideal Essay Writers
Professor Fischer’s main research interests lie in free will, moral responsibility, and both metaphysical and ethical issues pertaining to life and death. He is the author of ; with Mark Ravizza, ; and . His recent work includes a contribution to (in Blackwell’s Great Debates in Philosophy series) and three collections of essays all published by Oxford University Press: My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility; ; and . His undergraduate teaching includes an introductory ethics course, philosophy of law, theories of distributive justice, and philosophy of religion. He has also taught various courses on death and the meaning of life. His graduate teaching has primarily focused on free will, moral responsibility, and the metaphysics of death (and the meaning of life). Fischer is currently (as of July 1, 2012) serving as President of the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division and also Project Leader for The Immortality Project, a major grant supported by the John Templeton Foundation.