Getting the Fly out of the Bottle: The False Problem of Free Will and Determinism

P. Westen
{"title":"Getting the Fly out of the Bottle: The False Problem of Free Will and Determinism","authors":"P. Westen","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2005.8.2.599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Free will and determinism are said to constitute the most written-about problem in the history of philosophy, one that continues every year to produce major publications by major university presses, each claiming insight into moral and criminal responsibility. Commentators differ sharply in their approaches to the problem, ranging over those who embrace free will and reject determinism, those who embrace determinism and reject free will, those who reject both, and those who embrace both, including those who do so by virtue of redefining what counts as free will. Yet despite their disagreements, commentators seem to agree about one thing: they agree that the relationship between free will and determinism is a genuine problem in metaphysics and morals, that is, a problem that evidence, analysis, imagination, intelligence are capable of resolving, at least in theory. I argue, in contrast, that the relationship between free will and determinism is a false problem, that is, a problem that we are incapable of resolving, even in theory. It is a problem that we have constructed for ourselves - or, perhaps, more accurately, a problem that has been construed for us - because it is the product of contradictory modes of thought that we are obliged to bring to bear in reflecting upon it. Free will and determinism are hypotheses about the world that are inconsistent with presuppositions by which we must reason about them. Thus, determinism is a causal hypothesis regarding the nature of physical bodies and events, including ourselves, that is inconsistent with the presuppositions of reason and knowledge by which we assert it to be true. Free will, in turn, is an effort to explain reason and intentional conduct as being physically uncaused that is inconsistent with the nature of explanation itself. The proper response to a false problem is not to search for further evidence or to strive for better analysis. The proper response to a false problem, including that of free will and determinism, is to stop thinking about it.","PeriodicalId":344882,"journal":{"name":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2005.8.2.599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Free will and determinism are said to constitute the most written-about problem in the history of philosophy, one that continues every year to produce major publications by major university presses, each claiming insight into moral and criminal responsibility. Commentators differ sharply in their approaches to the problem, ranging over those who embrace free will and reject determinism, those who embrace determinism and reject free will, those who reject both, and those who embrace both, including those who do so by virtue of redefining what counts as free will. Yet despite their disagreements, commentators seem to agree about one thing: they agree that the relationship between free will and determinism is a genuine problem in metaphysics and morals, that is, a problem that evidence, analysis, imagination, intelligence are capable of resolving, at least in theory. I argue, in contrast, that the relationship between free will and determinism is a false problem, that is, a problem that we are incapable of resolving, even in theory. It is a problem that we have constructed for ourselves - or, perhaps, more accurately, a problem that has been construed for us - because it is the product of contradictory modes of thought that we are obliged to bring to bear in reflecting upon it. Free will and determinism are hypotheses about the world that are inconsistent with presuppositions by which we must reason about them. Thus, determinism is a causal hypothesis regarding the nature of physical bodies and events, including ourselves, that is inconsistent with the presuppositions of reason and knowledge by which we assert it to be true. Free will, in turn, is an effort to explain reason and intentional conduct as being physically uncaused that is inconsistent with the nature of explanation itself. The proper response to a false problem is not to search for further evidence or to strive for better analysis. The proper response to a false problem, including that of free will and determinism, is to stop thinking about it.
把苍蝇从瓶子里拿出来:自由意志和决定论的错误问题
自由意志和决定论被认为是哲学史上被写得最多的问题,这个问题每年都在主要大学出版社出版,每一本都声称对道德和刑事责任有深刻的见解。评论家们对这个问题的看法大相径庭,有的人接受自由意志而拒绝决定论,有的人接受决定论而拒绝自由意志,有的人两者都拒绝,有的人两者都接受,包括那些通过重新定义什么是自由意志而接受的人。然而,尽管存在分歧,评论家们似乎在一件事上达成了一致:他们一致认为,自由意志和决定论之间的关系是形而上学和道德中的一个真正的问题,也就是说,至少在理论上,证据、分析、想象和智力都能够解决这个问题。相反,我认为自由意志和决定论之间的关系是一个错误的问题,也就是说,一个我们无法解决的问题,即使在理论上也是如此。这是一个我们为自己构建的问题——或者,更准确地说,是一个为我们解释的问题——因为它是我们在反思它时不得不承担的相互矛盾的思维方式的产物。自由意志和决定论是关于世界的假设,它们与我们必须据此进行推理的前提不一致。因此,决定论是一种关于物理物体和事件(包括我们自己)本质的因果假设,它与我们断言它是正确的理性和知识的前提不一致。反过来,自由意志是一种解释理性和有意行为的努力,因为它们是物理上无原因的,这与解释本身的性质不一致。对错误问题的正确回应不是寻找进一步的证据或努力进行更好的分析。对错误的问题,包括自由意志和决定论的问题,正确的反应是停止思考它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信