Philosophy

10/22/23, 8:17 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407202/View 1/3

Compatibilism and Joseph Keim Campbell

Joseph Keim Campbell (School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at Washington State University) gives an example

of a compatibilist view.

"Compatibilists believe that freedom and responsibility are in every signi�cant sense compatible with determinism; thus

there is no con�ict between determinism and free will."

Soft determinists are a special type of compatibilists, who believe determinism is true; in other words, there are some

actions that are free and some actions that are unfree. We can make a distinction between these actions in various ways:

internal, psychologically caused free actions vs. external, physically coerced unfree actions, for example.

For Campbell, there is a freedom-relevant condition that is necessary for moral responsibility. In his view, we are morally

responsible, as we do have the opportunity to choose different courses of action. He believes that even if determinism is

true, there remains a sense in which you can still do otherwise or take a different path: you will do otherwise if you so

choose. This is consistent with determinism. So it would seem that freedom and determinism can coexist. This is why

Campbell refers to his view as “strong compatibilism.”

As long as we have some sense of freedom, there is a sense in which people can be held morally praiseworthy or

blameworthy for their actions and choices. Our moral responsibility depends on how we act, and whether or not we were

able to choose.

Listen

10/22/23, 8:17 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407202/View 2/3

Compatibilist Alternatives - Joseph Keim Campbell Use the following link to access and read this selection - Joseph Keim Campbell - Compatibilist Alternatives

Indeterminism

Indeterminism as Opposed to Free Will Here, we examine some possible positions in the free-will debate and some proposed solutions to the problem. As you

read, remember that indeterminism is a different concept from free will. Indeterminism states that some events are not

completely determined by their causes. Some people believe that if indeterminism is true, then we have no free will. But

others deny this; they are called "compatibilists" because they think that free will is compatible with determinism.

It is helpful in thinking about free will to contrast cases of ordinary, free action with cases of various kinds of unfreedom.

One type of unfreedom is acting from a compulsion. For example, consider people who are compelled to wash their hands

repeatedly even to the point where they damage the skin. Note that compulsion is different from coercion. An example of

coercion is being forced at gunpoint to hand over one's wallet. Coercion involves one person forcing another to do

something. Compulsions, by contrast, are inner drives.

William James and Indeterminism

William James is described as an indeterminist. He claims that there is always some ‘loose play’ among parts of the

universe, and multiple possibilities for how things can be. Whatever does actually happen, happens because of chance, not

out of necessity or natural laws. There are two types of postulates of rationality: either everything is determined, or

everything is up to chance. The pessimistic determinist is comfortable with the former, but the optimistic indeterminist is

comfortable with, and �nds more intelligible, the latter.

In a way, James presents an indeterminist defense of libertarianism. Since we can't prove determinism (hard or soft) or

indeterminism, indeterminism is more plausible and we should act as if we have free will.

James is encouraging us to remain optimistic – if everything is up to chance, then don’t assume chance events will always

have a negative consequence.

Questions to Consider

As you read, consider the following questions:

Under what conditions does Joseph Keim Campbell argue that we can say we have free

will?

What is the issue of “Moore's two-'cans' view” and how does it relate to free will?

Note the delicate relationship between contexts and facts in how Campbell describes a

situation in which someone may or may not have acted freely.

Making Connections

Which fallacy does Joseph Keim Campbell see in arguments that use more than one de�nition of the word “can”? (Remember our fallacies in Unit 1.)

One of the important points in Joseph Keim Campbell’s paper is “Some consequences take the form of other events: S does a and a causes event e.” How might Hume respond given his skepticism and need for direct impressions of causes?

Does Locke’s view of memory relate to compatibilism in any interesting ways? How might our memories affect our current choices? If we remember being hurt in the past, would that make a future action that might hurt us impossible for our future self?

10/22/23, 8:17 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407202/View 3/3

Over 125 years ago, William James found today's most plausible and

practical solution to the 2400-year old problem of free will and

determinism. Many philosophers today think that free will is an illusion, or

that free will is compatible with all our actions being pre-determined since

the beginning of the universe. James thought otherwise.

Direct Link - https://youtu.be/rPWg6tfSx2k

For more study and to test your knowledge, please take the Unit 4 Self Assessment - Soft-Determinism or Compatibilism (not graded).

10/22/23, 8:14 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407203/View 1/4

Speci�c Questions for Each View

Notice that the order in which these questions are answered matters as much as the answers themselves. Some views

actually refuse to answer particular questions as well!

Is Determinism true?

Can there be Free Will?

Determinists:

1.  YES

2. Depends …

Libertarians:

2. YES

1. NO (since Free Will exists)

Range of Positions on Free Will and Determinism

Compatibilists (Soft Determinists):

2.  Yes

Hard Determinists:

2.  No

Listen

10/22/23, 8:14 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407203/View 2/4

Baron d’Holbach: Hard determinist; what we call free will is simply a modi�cation of the physical brain. We

necessarily seek to enhance/ensure our own existence. As natural beings, we are wholly subject to laws of nature. In

this sense, forces independent of us create desires/drives in us that determine what we do.

John Hospers: Soft determinist; character is formed by forces beyond our control (genetic, environmental, etc.) and

our desires are formed as a product of that character. We could choose to act otherwise if our desires were

different, if we had the ability to overcome those external forces, but that ability itself (strong will) is itself formed by

external forces. Some of us do have this ability, so it would seem that having the ability to use self-control, be moral,

strong will, is simply a matter of luck. There are two levels of moral discourse: actions and the springs of actions.

Terms like ‘responsible’ only apply to the �rst level (actions) and not the springs of action. We cannot be held

responsible for our springs of action, because they are out of our control.

William James: Indeterminist; there is always some ‘loose play’ among parts of the universe, multiple possibilities

for how things can be. Whatever does actually happen, happens because of chance, not out of necessity or natural

laws. There are two types of postulates of rationality: either everything is determined, or everything is up to chance.

The pessimistic determinist is comfortable with the former, but the optimistic indeterminist is comfortable with, and

�nds more intelligible, the latter.

Richard Taylor: Self determinism, theory of agency, free will: free acts must be those caused by the agent themself as

a ‘whole being’. This might seem like an odd exception when most of the events of the natural world seem to follow

predictable, natural laws, but it �ts how we understand our normal day-to-day experience. Argument against soft

determinism: even internally caused actions must have prior causes too, of the sort that are determined, so soft

determinism really just collapses into hard determinism (all acts are determined). Argument against indeterminism:

acts from chance would be totally random and out of anyone or anything’s control.

W. T. Stace: Soft determinism, for us to have free will things don’t have to be completely indeterminate. In ordinary

conversation we commonly talk of some acts being free and some acts being unfree. Both acts have causes, just

different: free acts have internal psychological causes and unfree acts have external physical causes. Free will does

exist and is compatible with determinism, as well as moral responsibility.

Nancy Holmstrom: Soft determinism; with added consideration on the sources of the causes of acts. An action is

free only to the extent that the agent has control over the beliefs and desires that cause the performance of the

action. Control need not be all or nothing, it is often a matter of degree. These degrees depend on the degree to

which our desires and beliefs do not act on us against our will, the degree of our awareness that the sources of

action are operating on us, and how and why the sources of action are operating on us. Smoking/advertising.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: Karma sets certain limits but we are free within those limits. The Hindu doctrine of

karma, meaning ‘action’ or ‘deed’ says that all of our actions create a force that determines our destiny. Moral actions

in this life will affect our status in the next life. Although karma links us with our past, we have the creative power to

shape ourselves. It also follows from this that we should have more compassion for those who are less fortunate

than us, since we all share the same human frailties.

The Pali Canon: The Buddha teaches that there is no self: what we call the self is simply a combination of bundles of

�ve kinds of force or energy. These are form (material shape), feelings, perceptions (sensations), formations (acts of

will), and consciousness. Nothing in any of these bundles is permanent or a self. We cannot control these bundles.

Internal and external experience are both impermanent (object and base of consciousness), and so the resulting

10/22/23, 8:14 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407203/View 3/4

form of consciousness is also impermanent, and therefore painful. When we eliminate ignorance, eliminates the

sequence of ignorance—craving—suffering.

Daniel Dennett: The self is simply the product of the ongoing narrative that we use to describe our experience

(stream of consciousness, train of thought). The self is an abstraction that we create as we use language, tell stories

about whom we are, and preserve ourselves. Biology begins in self-preservation. This has implications for arti�cial

intelligence machines that can report on their activities, and multiple personality disorder.

Your Position on the Free Will Debate

What is Your Position? Use this exercise to �nd out your position on the Free Will Debate.  Answer the questions below, keeping track of your

answers (a or b). Below is a table which shows what your combination of answers means. 

Your Answers Your Position

1a, 2a, 3a You are a soft determinist.

1a, 2a, 3b

Your position doesn't have a single name. Like a libertarian, you think that we have free will

and that determinism is false. But, unlike a libertarian, you think that we could have free will

even if determinism were true. Is this position consistent?

1a, 2b, 3b Your position is an unusual one. You believe that it's possible to have free will even though

determinism is true, but that in fact we don't have free will and determinism is false.

1a, 2b, 3a Your position is an unusual one. You believe that it's possible to have free will even though

determinism is true, but that in fact we don't have free will even though determinism is false. 

1b, 2a, 3a Your position seems to be inconsistent. You say that free will is incompatible with

determinism, but you also say that we have free will and that determinism is true. 

1b, 2b, 3a You are a hard determinist. 

1b, 2a, 3b You are a libertarian.

1b, 2b, 3b Your position is an unusual one. You believe that free will and determinism are incompatible

and that both are false. Is your position consistent? 

Do you think that free will is compatible with determinism? (Remember that "compatible" means that it

is possible for both to be true. It doesn't mean that both are true.)

          a.  Yes

          b.  No

Do you think that we have free will (at least sometimes)?

          a.  Yes

          b.  No

Do you think that determinism is true??

          a.  Yes

          b.  No

THINK ABOUT IT

Has your position on free will and determinism changed as a result of thinking about the problem?

10/22/23, 8:14 AM Basic Page

https://go.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/2807452/viewContent/56407203/View 4/4

For more study and to test your knowledge, please take the Unit 4 Self Assessment - Reviewing the Choices on Free Will (not graded).