philosophy

Philosophy 101

Handout #6

Summer Semester 2021

Roderick Chisholm, Human Freedom and the Self

The Problem

1. A Paradox

· Human being are responsible agents

· But this appears to conflict with a deterministic view of human action

· It also appears to conflict with an indeterministic view of human action

· Look at the larger picture is required

2. Responsibility

· Example: somebody shot somebody else

· If agent is responsible: then the act was something that it was in his power to perform or not

· In which case: the act cannot have been caused by an event not in agent’s power to bring about

· E.g. hypnosis, external force etc.

· But also: agent’s desires and beliefs (‘they’ caused the deed, not agent himself)

3. Objection

· (a) ‘He could have done otherwise’ [means]

· (b) ‘If he had chosen to do otherwise, then he would have done otherwise’

· (b) consistent with determinism: since (a) = (b), (a) also consistent with determinism

· But (a) not = (b): (b) could be true while (a) is false

· For (a) follows from (b) only if (c) ‘He could have chosen to do otherwise’

· If (c) false, then (a) not = (b)

· So ascription of responsibility conflicts with deterministic view of action

Causation

1. Dichotomy

· Is there a chance of a concept of action that is neither deterministic nor indeterministic?

· That means: it is not the case that every event involved in act is caused by other event; and it is not the case that it is not caused at all

· Remaining possibility: at least one of events involved in act is not caused by other event, but by something else

2. Two concepts of causation

· ‘transeunt causation’: one event causing another

· ‘immanent causation’: agent causing event

· Can we make sense of the distinction?

3. Objections

· First objection: man may move his hand, but does not cause event in the brain

· But ultimately brain event causes movement of hand

· Reply: agent might still be immanent cause of brain event

· The brain event might be something he ‘made happen’ in moving his arm

· General picture of action: agent makes something happen by (via immanent causation) causing brain event, which causes bodily movement

· Second objection: what does it mean to say that an agent causes an event?

· Is there a difference between an agent causing an event and that event just happening?

· Reply: agent caused event but did nothing to cause it

· Problem of causation generally (not just immanent causation): what does it mean to say that two events are causally related?

· Hume: concept of cause cannot be derived perceptually

· Reid: it is to be derived from our experience that we are able to produce certain effects

Consequences

· Not a problem of free will but of agency

· If we are ‘prime movers unmoved’, then actions cannot be motivated by desires

· Hence there is no logical connection between wanting and doing

· And hence there can be no ‘science of man’