Stace and compatibilists say, “Acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent. Acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent” (Vaughn 253). This statement is not entirely correct since it does not consider the influence of external factors on the psychological state of the agent. In other words, a person can be influenced by emotions due to external events that determine their psychological state. The author talks about outside circumstances, such as being in the desert without food or water, which the agent can influence by unfree actions. It means that a person has a strict restriction of free will; that is, it is not real.
The oppositional theory is that an agent does not always have the right to choose an action based on a psychological state. For example, when the police detain a person for a crime, their freedom of action is limited by an external environmental circumstance. Such cases are meant by the author, to consider limitations by external factors when making decisions. Another example would be meeting a criminal at night in a lonely place. The robber approaches the man and begins to poke a pistol in his face and shout to give him the wallet. In this situation, the agent is not under the direct physical influence of external factors; that is, the robber does not restrict his freedom but puts pressure on the psychological decision. Based on the previous, it cannot be argued that freedom of action depends only on psychological factors. The agent could not simply walk away from the culprit if he wanted to, although he was not exposed to the conditions.
Work Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018.