|
|
|
|
|
Evaluation of Brooks’ Contribution to the Free-Will—Determinism Debate
|
|
|
In this paper I shall summarize Keith Brooks’ paper on free will, make a few suggestions, and describe a tangential thought springing from the topic of his paper. I congratulate Brooks on a job well done and feel that one can see the quality of his paper simply by reading it – my filling this review with flattery would not do justice to the well-thought arguments that Brooks advances. Brooks’ article can be divided into six sections. The first section contains various definitions that pertain to his paper. I will use these same definitions in my analysis. The second section argues for free will from the existence of morality. This argument, I think, is correct. The third section argues for incompatibilism based on the ‘No Choice’ principle that Inwagen proposes. Simply put, if Sally has no choice (directly or indirectly) about event A and event A causes an action of Sally’s, event B, then it follows that Sally had no choice about event B. Thus if an event X (which is uninfluenced by any human action) causally determines every human action then it follows that no one has free will. The fourth section refutes Inwagen’s saying that indeterminism contains inexplicable mysteries. Brooks says that the mystery Inwagen puts forward is essentially his asking “what caused that uncaused event?” But this question is silly says Brooks. If the event is uncaused then by definition it had no cause. Brooks argues that there is a precedent for saying that humans are the first causes of the decisions they make because God is the first cause of His creating the universe. The fifth section seems to argue for the existence of free will based on Inwagen’s locked door analogy. If this is indeed what Brooks argues (which he perhaps does not though he explicitly says he does) then his argument misinterprets Inwagen. (I shall examine this more fully later in this paper.) And the final section concludes his paper saying that compatibilism is wrong based on the undeniability of the ‘No Choice’ principle. My first suggestion to Brooks would be for him to incorporate the structure of his paper into his opening and concluding remarks. His paper is designed with a beautiful chiastic structure: A. Introduction and definitions B. Argument for free will – from morality C. Problem with compatibilism C’. Problem with incompatibilism B’. Argument for free will – from locked door A’.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
