Strawson's Basic Argument Analysis

493 Words2 Pages

Philosophers are on a constant struggle to determine if free-will is real or an illusion. Joshua Knobe believes we will do a better job addressing philosophical questions if we “can arrive at a better understanding of the way our own minds work” and free-will is a very important part of our brain, if it were to exist (Experiments in Philosophy, Pg.3). Some philosophers may argue that if free will is an illusion “you couldn’t come up with a philosophical stance on […] new information and act on it, because that implies choice and choice is a product of free will” (If scientists unequivocally proved free will was an illusion, how would society change, if at all?, Pg. 1). So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will?
Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1). In summation, if you’re responsible for what you do then you’re responsible for the way you are. But since you aren’t responsible for the way you are, then you aren’t responsible for what you do. …show more content…

He describes how science is able to somewhat prove that free will is predetermined by showing an experiment where computer readings were able to predict a monkeys actions before the monkey even began the action. Experiments like this that are able to predict the future put free will to doubt. Egginton then describes how religion may counteract free will. God supposedly created humans with free will but if God’s ability is truly limitless, then he would not just know the past and present but also the future. With an omnipotent God, that knows the future, free will is again put to

Show More
Open Document