When it comes to the philosophical aspects of life, many people support the idea of free will. This idea is deeply ingrained in their actual experiences to the extent that it is nearly hard to consider the possibility that their perspectives are incorrect. For example, when individuals contemplate various actions and make decisions, it can be assumed that there are several options available to them and that people may execute multiple courses of action. Consequently, when individuals reflect on a poor decision or criticize themselves for bad decision-making, it is often believed that they could have decided to act differently in the given situation. Nevertheless, many many philosophers and schools of thinking assume that the argument of free will is false and that human life is governed by determinism, implying that all human actions are the result of extraneous causes.
When it comes to a deeper understanding of determinism, it is seen as a broad argument about the existence that states that every event that occurs, particularly what an individual chooses and does, is predetermined by historical events and principles. Determinism is not a sensible concept, and it is difficult to believe that it may be real, which established two perspectives, compatibilist and incompatibilist (McKenna, 2019). Incompatibilism is the belief that a predetermined reality is incompatible with the concept of free will, which is described as the ability of aware actors to select a future direction from among multiple physical choices (McKenna, 2017). Meanwhile, the compatibilists doubt that determinism’s validity would have such a significant effect (McKenna, 2019). From a compatibilist’s point of view, the reality of determinism is consistent with the veracity of the human version of free will (McKenna, 2019). Consequently, the metaphysical issue of free will and determinism lies within trying to ascertain which school of thought holds an accurate version: compatibilists or incompatibilists.
In order to understand the perspectives of incompatibilists with regard to free will and determinism, it is vital to observe the types of this group. Hard determinists and libertarians are two types of incompatibilists who argue for determinism (McKenna, 2017). The former can be considered incompatibilists who claim that determinism is absolute or, instead, that such a concept is relatively strong to be regarded as valid in relevance to free will, implying that humans do not possess it.
Meanwhile, the latter can be considered incompatibilists who argue that humans do have free will and that this implies that determinism is untrue. Generally, libertarians have claimed that acting in a sensible way necessitates individuals possessing a unique and enigmatic causal capacity not possessed by any other entity in nature (McKenna, 2017). This can be rendered as a divine ability to be an abstract entity of world shifts (McKenna, 2017). Libertarians who share this viewpoint appear to believe that free will is only conceivable in universes that are at least somewhat uncontrolled and lack any laws. However, there are libertarians who reject such dangerous philosophical assertions, arguing that free will is viable in unpredictable settings (McKenna, 2017). Incompatibilists are hardly strong determinists or libertarians since they are skeptical about the validity or falsehood of determinism’s concept (McKenna, 2017). There are incompatibilists who do not believe in free will, and there are individuals who choose to be hopeful when it comes to the potential of developing a viable explanation of free will.
As for the considerations for incompatibilism, the arguments of these philosophers can be divided into two categories. The first involves claims for the idea that the essence of determinism makes it extremely difficult for humans to properly create and govern their behaviors and actions (McKenna, 2017). The second involves claims for the idea that determinism would take away the possibility of individuals to act or choose freely. The first type of reasoning focuses on the concepts of self, cause, and accountability (McKenna, 2017). The fear is that determinism eliminates the kind of causality individuals evoke when they ascribe acts to people and pass moral accountability judgments (McKenna, 2017). The second type of reasoning focuses on the concept of freedom. It appears that having control means having true possible alternatives and methods of acting (McKenna, 2017). The concern is that determinism implies that whatever individuals do is constantly the single option they can have (McKenna, 2017). As a result, it is believed that people never truly have a choice, rather than being under the possibly unavoidable delusion that they do.
One of the most significant points of view in regard to determinism was introduced by Peter van Inwagen, an American philosopher, more specifically, his Consequence Argument played a pivotal role. The Consequence Argument was presented by Peter van Inwagen as a justification for the notion of incompatibilism and was popularized as a counter-argument to compatibilism. The given theory is based on what van Inwagen refers to as the no choice principle (O’Connor, 2018). This notion appears quite reasonable and involves the question of how an individual can make a decision about something that is an inevitable outcome of something a person has no control over.
The argument of the philosopher and the like-minded individuals is that nobody has control over historical facts or natural laws. Nobody can change the reality that the events of the past and the laws of the universe imply all future realities (O’Connor, 2018). As a result, many philosophers argued that nobody has control over future events (O’Connor, 2018). If determinism is accurate, per the Consequence Argument, nobody really seems to have any control over how their own destiny unfolds. The reasoning of van Inwagen alarmed compatibilists for a legitimate reason (O’Connor, 2018). The traditional compatibilists’ inability to evaluate claims about an individual’s capacities on the grounds of hypothetical conditionals left them with no obvious rebuttal to the Classical Incompatibilist Argument’s fundamental assumption (O’Connor, 2018). Moreover, as per the reasoning of the Consequence Argument, determinism indicates that, based on the past and laws of nature, the future will develop in one direction solely, and nobody has the capacity to change that outcome, it appears that nobody ever can do anything.
In order to delve peer into the essence of van Inwagen’s opinion, if determinism is real, then human actions are the result of natural rules and distant occurrences. However, individuals have no control over what happened before they were born, nor do they have control over the laws of nature (O’Connor, 2018). According to the American philosopher, since actors have no influence over previous events, then they have no influence over the effects of those circumstances. The accompanying is a syllogistic interpretation of the statement that claims that no entity has control over historical facts or natural laws (O’Connor, 2018). Consequently, individuals have no control over the reality that the events of the past and the forces of nature necessitate every future occurrence, which means that determinism is valid. Moreover, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the events, primarily their current actions.
Therefore, the argument of the mentioned philosopher allows one to comprehend the concept that the future is available in a way that the past is not. Thus, it can be rendered as a part of the human shared perception system of assumptions about themselves as choosers and actors. This also represents a belief that the laws of nature restrict people’s capabilities and powers. The reasoning made by Peter van Inwagen is an effort to offer support for the incompatibilist’s interpretation of these rational assumptions. The given argument established that the debate over free will and determinist is a philosophical matter, with underlying concerns involving issues related to human skills and capabilities, including more common questions about causality, hypotheticals, and natural laws.
Consequently, the main question raised by the perspective of van Inwagen is whether choosers’ and individuals’ powers or capabilities can be thought of as a natural ability or demeanor. Moreover, it raises the question of whether there is an incompatibilist option that is feasible and whether there is a way how humans should think about hypothetical scenarios in terms of actors’ alternate decisions and thoughts in predetermined realms.
Hence, numerous philosophers and schools of thought believe that free choice is a fallacy and that human existence is regulated by determinism. In this sense, incompatibilism claims that free will and determinism are incompatible, which led to two schools of thought emerging, more specifically, libertarianism and hard determinism. However, one of the most influential perspectives was provided by Peter van Inwagen who developed the Consequence Argument, also known as the no choice principle, to bolster the claims of incompatibilists. It is based on the assumption that no one can alter reality and that previous occurrences and laws of nature infer all future occurrences. Thus it is possible to claim that no one has influence over future events. As a result, because no human being has power over previous occurrences or natural forces, it appears that no one has control over present actions, implying determinism and the nonexistence of free will in its common perception.
References
McKenna, M. (2017). Arguments for incompatibilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
McKenna, M. (2019). Compatibilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
O’Connor, T. (2018). Free will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.