Philosophy Paper

Phil Writing L11

Questions/Problems for Frankfurt’s view — Really ingenious neuroscientist again? (Implants 2nd and 1st order desires)

— Frankfurt’s definition also not sufficient for free action? — case that meets his definition, but intuitively isn’t free.

1. Does he count too many actions as free?

Frankfurt’s responses? — bite the bullet — posit 3rd order desires?? (hopeless) see p.497

2. Does he count too few actions as free? Weakness of the will — cookie case

(Relates to 2) Impulse action 3. Do we have to reflect upon and endorse every desire that we action?

Modified cookie case Often we are on autopilot, not engaging in 2nd order reflection (Also, some people are more reflective and self-questioning than others)

Chisholm — indeterminist (agent causation) (Section 11 & 12) Argument that the falsity of determinism entails that we never act freely 1.Suppose determinism is false. 2.So my actions are not determined by anything, including my own choices, desires, reasons. 3.An action that is not determined by those things is not free (and maybe isn’t even an action). So if determinism is false, I never act freely.

Claim1: Agents start their own causal chains. We are all “prime moves unmoved”

Denial of determinism — our beliefsthoughtschoices are not determined by past, DNA, laws etc. “Incline but not necessitate” Amounts to denying premise 2 of the argument on the slide.

I introduce: Chisholm*, who only makes claim1.

Premise 2 doesn’t follow from falsity of determinism. Actions are NOT random, uncaused. They ARE caused by you and what you want! But

what you want (etc) is not determined.

Claim2: The connection from my mental states/choices to action is ALSO not deterministic

Questions for Chisholm* — how do various forces “incline but not necessitate”? — what notion of a person does this involve?

immaterial souls? big questions in philosophy of mind