A dilemma is considered a situation in which you have to make a difficult choice. Vaughn states that free will is when "at least some of our choices and actions are not decided for us or forced upon us but are genuinely up to us." (Vaughn, pg.333) Free will is such a dilemma because for humans, it is natural to think that events are caused by previous events, but then again, it is natural to think that we act freely as well, yet together, these plausible beliefs cannot be true. The two general ways to respond to this problem are Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. The ladder says that free will and determinism are not compatible. While the former, says that you can have determinism while also having free will.
One who takes an Incompatibilsts …show more content…
Every killer has motives, that is, there are reasons why they are killing. The boy wants to kill his mother because she threw his toy in the garbage which causes the boy to get angry. The boy grabs a knife and is walking towards his mother. The boy has a desire to kill his mother right now, but then he realizes that if he were to kill his mother then no one would be able to help him with his homework. In the end, the boy decides not to kill his mother. At first, the boy's "passion" was to kill his mother, but because she was helped him do well on homework he changed his mind. Here is the chain of events: His mother took the toy, the boy got angry, he desires to kill his mother, he grabs a knife, walked towards her, as he's walking he remembers all the times she helped with his homework, he doesn't kill her. Some may criticize my example and say that the boy changing his mind was an act of free will, but in reality, a prior event caused him to change his mind, it was not free will. His mother helping him with his homework was the sufficient cause he needed in order to not kill …show more content…
He has these "Non-causal theories" which argues that "our actions must be entirely uncaused." (SEP, pg.1), yet, without a cause, that would mean every action we make is entirely dependent upon randomness. Another counter that against him is that "Non-causal theories of action and free will reject the view that there is an agent who is responsible for causation." (SEP, pg.1) And in all my readings of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there is not one Non-causal account that meets "the requirements of stating what the control is and what it consists of." (SEP, pg.1) He believes it is all free will, but can't explain how. It is indeed true that humans often feel that "when making a choice we often sense we have genuine options and that we have the power to choose. We get the sensation that our decisions are ultimately up to us" (Vaughn, pg.337) The fact of the matter is that this experiential sense is illusionary. (Vaughn, pg.337) Our actions are not free and cannot be proven
One who takes an Incompatibilsts …show more content…
Every killer has motives, that is, there are reasons why they are killing. The boy wants to kill his mother because she threw his toy in the garbage which causes the boy to get angry. The boy grabs a knife and is walking towards his mother. The boy has a desire to kill his mother right now, but then he realizes that if he were to kill his mother then no one would be able to help him with his homework. In the end, the boy decides not to kill his mother. At first, the boy's "passion" was to kill his mother, but because she was helped him do well on homework he changed his mind. Here is the chain of events: His mother took the toy, the boy got angry, he desires to kill his mother, he grabs a knife, walked towards her, as he's walking he remembers all the times she helped with his homework, he doesn't kill her. Some may criticize my example and say that the boy changing his mind was an act of free will, but in reality, a prior event caused him to change his mind, it was not free will. His mother helping him with his homework was the sufficient cause he needed in order to not kill …show more content…
He has these "Non-causal theories" which argues that "our actions must be entirely uncaused." (SEP, pg.1), yet, without a cause, that would mean every action we make is entirely dependent upon randomness. Another counter that against him is that "Non-causal theories of action and free will reject the view that there is an agent who is responsible for causation." (SEP, pg.1) And in all my readings of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there is not one Non-causal account that meets "the requirements of stating what the control is and what it consists of." (SEP, pg.1) He believes it is all free will, but can't explain how. It is indeed true that humans often feel that "when making a choice we often sense we have genuine options and that we have the power to choose. We get the sensation that our decisions are ultimately up to us" (Vaughn, pg.337) The fact of the matter is that this experiential sense is illusionary. (Vaughn, pg.337) Our actions are not free and cannot be proven