Limitations Of Libertarianism
One of the most debated topics by philosophers in history is the meaning and limitations of free will. After analyzing through a number of philosopher’s position, I believe the most plausible explanation of free will would be the following: there are events in life that we could control, but there are always some limitations on how far our free will can take us. In essence, I believe that there is “free will” in this world, but with an asterisk. This adjusted free will theorem is something that could be seen in Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and in Roderick M. Chisholm’s Human Freedom and the Self. Both of these philosophers build upon each other when it comes to the topic of free will. This could be seen with Aquinas, where he would
…show more content…
Chisholm in Human Freedom and the Self makes the most sense out of the three major ideas of free will, which are Libertarianism, Hard Determinism, and Compatibilism. The basis of libertarianism is as follows: determinism is proven to be false and human possess the freedom required for moral responsibility. This could be seen with the following excerpt from the respective article: “…at least one of the events that are involved in the that is caused, not by any other events, but by something else instead…and this something else can only be the agent—the man.” (Chisholm 421) Based on this insight that Chisholm is making, he makes it such that there is responsibility present for human being. This is based on the two types of causation found in his article, transient and immanent causation. Transient causation is created “when one event or state or affair (or set of events or states or affairs) causes some other event or state or affair”. In contrast, immanent causation is “when an agent, as distinguished from an event, causes an event or state of affairs…” (Chisholm, 421) Combining these findings, Chisholm is trying to say that humans only have moral responsibility in the events that are caused by themselves rather than all events in a chain. For examining Chisholm’s ideas, we will consider this situation: person A opens the window to let in some “fresh air” and the “fresh air” outside blows some tree leaves into the room that person A is currently in. In this situation, the immanent causation would be the “fresh air” blowing in the tree leaves and the window letting in the “fresh air” because these are all some type of event that causes another event. On the other side, person A opening the window would be the transient causation because the opening of the window occurred because of person A. In essence, the moral responsibility of creating this series of event would
Chisholm in Human Freedom and the Self makes the most sense out of the three major ideas of free will, which are Libertarianism, Hard Determinism, and Compatibilism. The basis of libertarianism is as follows: determinism is proven to be false and human possess the freedom required for moral responsibility. This could be seen with the following excerpt from the respective article: “…at least one of the events that are involved in the that is caused, not by any other events, but by something else instead…and this something else can only be the agent—the man.” (Chisholm 421) Based on this insight that Chisholm is making, he makes it such that there is responsibility present for human being. This is based on the two types of causation found in his article, transient and immanent causation. Transient causation is created “when one event or state or affair (or set of events or states or affairs) causes some other event or state or affair”. In contrast, immanent causation is “when an agent, as distinguished from an event, causes an event or state of affairs…” (Chisholm, 421) Combining these findings, Chisholm is trying to say that humans only have moral responsibility in the events that are caused by themselves rather than all events in a chain. For examining Chisholm’s ideas, we will consider this situation: person A opens the window to let in some “fresh air” and the “fresh air” outside blows some tree leaves into the room that person A is currently in. In this situation, the immanent causation would be the “fresh air” blowing in the tree leaves and the window letting in the “fresh air” because these are all some type of event that causes another event. On the other side, person A opening the window would be the transient causation because the opening of the window occurred because of person A. In essence, the moral responsibility of creating this series of event would