Introduction (Chapter 2.1)

Kane writes that we will first consider the doctrine of free will known as compatibilism. Compatibilists insist that our choices and actions are determined yet also free, and this makes the doctrine popular with modern scientists and philosophers alike. Compatibilism dates back to the Stoics if not before and gained a lot of ground beginning in the seventeenth century as it was championed by major philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Mill.

But many find it intuitively untenable, especially at first, that determinism and freedom can be reconciled, and Kant and William James were very critical of the notion. So, how do compatibilists explain and defend it?

The Determinist Question and Modern Science (Chapter 1.6)

Kane writes that the universal physical determinism of the “Laplacian or Newtonian vision” has been called into question by apparent indeterminism at the quantum level, even though a minority of physicists believe determinism prevails even at the quantum level.

Yet, even if quantum phenomena are undetermined, this doesn’t have to mean that more complex, higher level phenomena such as human will and behavior are undetermined too. What’s more, an undetermined or random choice would be no more freely or responsibly ours than a sudden muscle spasm that causes our arm to twitch. Finally, even if physical scientists are moving away from completely deterministic theories of physical phenomena, biological, psychological, and social scientists are moving toward more persuasive deterministic models of human choices and behavior.

But even if our behavior is determined, might we still have free will? Kane calls this the “Compatibility Question” that many modern thinkers answer in the affirmative. Chapter 2 addresses their compatibilist position.

Free Choices and Open Futures (Chapter 1.5)

Kane contrasts the conditional necessity of determinism with the “Open alternatives” of free will in which we can deliberate on those alternatives and choose between them in a manner that is “up to us,” in which we can choose other than how we end up choosing, and where our choice isn’t caused by anything outside our control.

Kane illustrates this with a hypothetical example of a young law school graduate deliberating between taking a position in a large law firm in Dallas or a small one in Austin. Her belief that she has a free choice in the matter means that she believes both options are “open” to her and that she has more than one possible path into the future. In fact, her future will consist of a “garden of forking paths.”

Determinism implies that there’s “only one possible path into the future.” Yet, some philosophers maintain that even when our choices are determined by factors beyond our control, we can still have free will “worth wanting” when we make those choices.