The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
The Libertarian view contends that one’s actions are not predetermined but rather that people have free will, a precondition for moral responsibility. Basically, human acts are not determined by antecedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under Incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism. An example of Libertarianism is: right now, one has the choice to either stop or continue reading this essay. Under this claim, the fact that one can choose between either is not determined one way or the other.
Campbell’s view on Libertarianism is quite simple. He suggests that one needs to judge people by their inner acts or intentions to understand free will. To have freedom one must have a precondition of moral responsibility as well as a categorical analysis of freedom: one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. Even if one is disrupted from performing the act, their character is judged on their effort. In addition Campbell clarifies that for this to be accurate: predictability and unintelligibility of an act must be also true. These mean that no one could have done the choosing for them and that the act cannot be explained, respectively. However, if it does not follow one’s character, how is it a random act (also known as agent causality)? Likewise, one must be able to predict the behaviour of someone they know well. Even so, in the end it is all about probability, just like trying to predict weather. One cannot answer why, so it must be random because if one shows it necessarily had to happen, they are giving it a cause. So, all in all, why should one limit themselves to the outer person when there is an inner experience? There are actual meanings to acts and others will not know them. As a result one does have free will.
Taylor’s view on Libertarianism is very similar. He believes that one has inner acts and that they are the sole creator of the act (so, they could have done otherwise). He says that it is the only thing that makes...