Question What drives all the squabbles about free will and determinism? Is it anything more than a desire to reward and to punish, especially to punish?

Accepted:
May 21, 2017

Comments

You're asking what is really

What you're asking is really an empirical, psychological question -- What motivates the various sides in a particular controversy? -- rather than a question that philosophers, as such, are well-equipped to answer. But I'll hazard an answer anyway.

Take some carefully, even painstakingly, considered decision, such as U.S. president Obama's decision to order the May 2011 hit on Osama bin Laden. If that decision wasn't one for which the agent is morally responsible -- i.e., morally liable to praise or blame -- then I don't know what could be. But according to the incompatibilist side of the debate, if determinism is true then Obama bears no more responsibility for his decision than someone high on PCP bears for his/her decision to try to fly from the roof of an apartment building. According to incompatibilism, if determinism is true then all decisions are equally unfree, equally lacking in responsibility, regardless of how sober, well-informed, and deliberate the decision-maker is.

The philosophical question is simply this: Is that view of the relation between free will and determinism correct? Is our practice of morally distinguishing Obama from the PCP user baseless if every choice is the deterministic result of prior causes? I myself answer no: I think incompatibilism is seriously mistaken. But I can't see how the question is unimportant or how the debate over it is merely a squabble.

Question What drives all the squabbles about free will and determinism? Is it anything more than a desire to reward and to punish, especially to punish? Accepted:May 21, 2017

Question What drives all the squabbles about free will and determinism? Is it anything more than a desire to reward and to punish, especially to punish?

Accepted:
May 21, 2017