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.
No comments:
Post a Comment