Compatibilism: Can free will and determinism co-exist?
Stanford philosophy professor takes the side of a beleaguered theory – that predetermination and free will are not mutually exclusive.
BY MAX MCCLURE at Stanford News
Drawing on the works of 18th-century British philosopher David Hume, Perry has set out two separate responses to the incompatibilists' complaint. The key is to prove that "will not" is not the same as "cannot."
Weak theory of laws
As Perry put it, "Hume thought the laws of nature were just generalizations that hadn't been refuted." In other words, Hume wouldn't say a glass falls to the ground because some fundamental law requires it to. He'd point out that we only say gravity exists because we saw the glass fall.
And that's basically where we still are today. There's the law of gravity that appears to be applicable to all entities that have mass. But we don't know how, going back to the existence of existence itself, it came to be what it is. And we certainly don't know why it came to be what it is and not something else. Or why it even exists at all.
While the distinction may seem trivial, Hume's view implies that the existence of gravity could be proved or disproved every time we drop something.
Or the distinction between determinism and compatibilism? Moral responsibility in a determined universe could be proved or disproved every time we choose a behavior? Only as with gravity there is still that gap between what we think we know about the human brain and all that there is to be known about it.
It also means that statements about future events are neither true nor false until they happen. "This glass will fall if I let go" is a sentence that will prove accurate or not only when I drop the glass. It's an approach that means the laws of physics are potentially redefined with every moment of existence.
Or, here, Mary will be morally responsibility if she chooses to have that abortion tomorrow because, what, my brain is either compelled or not compelled to argue that? The laws of physics and the human brain potentially redefined for us too. Whatever that even actually means.
Perry calls Hume's view the "weak theory of laws" and thinks it would satisfactorily resolve the incompatibilist question – by letting the "future events" tail wag the "universal physical laws" dog.
"The thing is," he said, "I don't agree with it. Hume didn't really believe in causation, but I think you can see it happening around you."
Fine. Would someone here be willing to explain how, given their own chosen behaviors from day to day, the past, present and future play themselves out in their own lives given the "weak theory of laws".
The part where we go beyond theory.
