Robert Kane, a famous philosopher, formulated the concept of free will, which is a relevant topic for discussion even nowadays. Free will is one of the most debatable problems of philosophy; many people still examine human will as an object of freedom. This topic is highly relevant to philosophers and ordinary people, as philosophy discusses everyday life and people’s choices. Kane attempted to create a conception that would be deeply rooted in fundamental libertarian knowledge. Robert Kane suggests that the idea of freedom includes two connected but different aspects (Kane). Following the first aspect, free will is a freedom of choice and the ability to choose between actions. The second aspect assumes that free will is the authorship of action, and the person who acts is a source of events. In general, Kane offered an innovative and debatable point of view on the issue, and it is essential to examine his perspective to understand whether it is possible to agree with the author or not.
Robert Kane considers that incompatibility theories do not describe free will wholly. He agrees that the freedom of action is necessary for an agent, but it is not enough to possess free will (Kane). In addition, he is not a defender of libertarian theories, as they do not determine the connection between authorship of action and modern views about the world’s order. In Kane’s opinion, these theories cannot explain the link between all concepts without mentioning mysterious ideas, ‘non-material egos,’ and unique powers (Kane 318). Robert Kane assumes that brain neural or quantum effects could be a physical mechanism to realize human free will. In this case, it is possible to explain why the person makes determined choices and why they can sometimes be confusing. This method undermines many theories about human behavior and determinism; however, Kane says that the selection is not random if the situation of quantum indeterminism in the brain matches the condition of psychological struggle when the agent cannot decide.
Moreover, the author suggests that mental struggle happens when the agent cannot choose between two notions. Therefore, if the two motives are morally valuable, action based on one of them changes the agent’s personality, and Kane calls it ‘self-forming action’ (Kane 318). Self-forming action is a position Kane uses for explaining his model, and it allows actions where the person does not have another choice if some other decision predetermined the actions. These actions are undetermined events that form the will; they occur when there are conflicts in people’s lives, and they hesitate to determine.
Moreover, he addresses the condition of alternative possibilities, where the agent could act differently. This issue is one of the main conditions for freedom and free will, discussed in libertarian theories. Alternative possibilities concept is a crucial notion for free will, as the agent cannot act freely without being given this ability. Kane opposes this notion to the concept of self-forming action, where the agent is potentially free to select. The author also connects the concept with responsibility, stating that the agent should be morally responsible for the actions he commits. He addresses the condition of ultimate responsibility when the agent is fully responsible for the action and ‘anything sufficient, condition, cause or motive’ (Kane 316). In this case, Robert Kane means background conditions and other circumstances that affect the choice of an agent and his actions subsequently. Moreover, Kane offers an idea about the incompatibility of free will with determinism and indeterminism (Kane). Therefore, his concept of free will does not match or logically continue any previous approaches.
It is essential to discuss whether Kane’s view of free will and moral responsibility should be accepted or not. On the one hand, Robert Kane offers excellent ideas on people’s motives to act and explains it through choice options. For instance, he states that the agent’s actions might be predetermined by quantum randomness happening in the human brain. Indeed, it is essential to notice that Kane digresses the position of his theory. It is not compatible with libertarian, determinist, and indeterminist ideas. The disturbing notion is an ultimate moral responsibility for action, where the agent should be morally responsible for activity and conditions. It is a relatively doubtful notion, as many circumstances can affect the person’s decision, and some situations can be uncontrollable. Probably, it should not mean that the agent must be responsible for conditions out of his control. Uncontrollable circumstances such as weather, other people’s actions, reactions, and other notions should not become a single person’s responsibility.
Overall, Robert Kane’s ideas about free will and moral responsibility are fascinating to examine. Indeed, some concepts might be confusing or illusionary, and it is questionable to accept them entirely. For instance, the idea of ultimate responsibility might seem doubtful and cause misunderstanding. In general, philosophy is a complicated and debatable study where people’s points of view on the same issue turn out to mismatch. Indeed, Kane’s vision is worth noticing and considering due to his innovative vision and precise explanation, respectively.
Work Cited
Kane, Robert. “Free Will and Responsibility: Ancient Dispute, New Themes.” The Journal of Ethics, vol. 4, no. 4, 2000, pp. 315-322. Springer.