Positive Case for Compatibilism and the Free Will Problem

The opinion of devoid leave has been a pane of contention for philosophers for some(prenominal) decades. One of the reasons for these diverging viewpoints is the debate on how ex accomplishmently to define the word thaw. It would be misleading to attribute whatever unity exclusive idea to the concept.However it is agreed neutrally that it is an exercise of an unmarrieds behavior in order for him to take incorrupt responsibility for his fulfills. A soul who takes on his deterrent example responsibility is one who bunghole chose to appoint decisions that are morally right or wrong. Thus, the blame or recompense for the outcome of the decision falls squarely on his shoulders. It is understood that reconcile give is an essential component of these decisions.Conceptually it goat be understood how the pre-determined nature of the universe can casually affect our decisions to such a point where free will is no longer applicable. However the theory of compatibilism states that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. That they can exist in concert without conflict, that an individual can exercise free will when faced with pre-determined factors. This report will analyze, synthesize and evaluate arguments related to the problems associated with the concept of free will and how compatibilism offers a solution to these problems (McKenna, 2004).In order to understand how compatibilism acts as a solution to the free will problem it is first important to understand that on that point are several concepts used attributed to free will. When these concepts are conjoined to others they constantly create several contradictions. In order to avoid these problems it is important to delve the classic formulation of free will which informs us of then several key factors associated with it. The first is that the individual has a choice to act in more than one way in a situation.However any action taken by an individual qualifies as an purget with v arious causes that pith the individuals decision. Thus, the cause is casually determined and the individual cannot act in any way other than what is pre-determined by these factors. It should be mention that the existence of free will is tantamount upon the fact that the individual has no extraneous source compelling him to act. Rather all his decisions making is dependent on(p) upon his give birth compulsion to follow his decisions in the face of alternate possibilities. It is notwithstanding in such a case that freedom to assume moral responsibility exists (McKenna, 2004).John Martin Fincher is a philosopher who is responsible for refining the viewpoint that suggested that decisions which constitute the free will of an individual can be touch on by a number of reasons. This proves why certain people can have opposite reactions to the same situation and rules out those individuals who have compulsive or psychoneurotic behavior.The refined viewpoint by Martin Fincher is know n as the reasons-responsiveness theory which states that even though there are considerations which may affect the decisions of an individual. The decision make it can still be considered to be an individual free will since the choice made is rationally based according to the factors affecting the individual (McKenna, 2004).Another concept attributed to Compatibilism is P.F Strawsons concept of moral responsibility. This is similar to Humes concept and says that the practice of holding an individual morally responsible for his or her own actions is formed on the basis of both emotional and societal structures. He said that the existence of these critical responses is part of human nature delineate by our basic emotional natures and cannot be abandoned, thus the fact that determinism affects our moral responsibility does not hold ground.However in certain cases an individual can choose to give up their moral judgments in favor of rationalizing the individuals actions can exist as we ll but only in the cases where the actions gains favors or losses to human life (Kane, 2002 p. 516-521).There are of course objections to the theories of compatibilism. One of the rationale arguments for incompatibilism comes from Carl Ginet. The argument given by him states that the power of an individual to affect form does not extend to factors such as those of nature that are by their very nature unchangeable.And if a certain fact affects a person directly and the consequences of that fact exist than the person will be affected by the consequences of that fact as well. Thus in the face of these facts determinism becomes real and since no one can change the facts that cause the situation, no one can affect the future (McKenna, 2004).