Question 1

According to Timothy O'Connor, free will could be the product of emergent properties such as consciousness that cannot be reduced to anything physical. He calls these _____ properties.

Accepted Answer

O'Connor refers to these as "volition-enabling" properties, suggesting that free will emerges from complex properties like consciousness that are not reducible to mere physical processes.

Question 2

Laplace's Superbeing thought experiment is intended to show that if causal determinism is true

Accepted Answer

Laplace's Superbeing (often referred to as Laplace's Demon) thought experiment posits that if someone (a Superbeing) knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their interactions, and all the laws of physics, then they could predict the future and retrodict the past with absolute precision. This is used to illustrate the concept of causal determinism, where the future state of the universe is determined by its past states and the laws of nature.

Question 3

Gardner's Random Bombardier thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Gardner's Random Bombardier thought experiment illustrates how uncaused, random events at the quantum (micro) level can influence outcomes at the macroscopic level, thereby challenging strict causal determinism by showing that such micro-level randomness can have significant, observable effects on the macro level.

Question 4

Taylor's Unpredictable Arm thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Taylor's Unpredictable Arm thought experiment illustrates that if your body movements are entirely random and beyond your control, it challenges the notion of being held responsible for those actions, as responsibility typically presupposes some level of control or predictability in one's actions.

Question 5

Newcomb's Paradox thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Newcomb's Paradox illustrates a conflict between two principles of decision-making: the dominance principle and the expected utility principle, showing how in certain situations, following one can lead to a contradiction with the other.

Question 6

Locke's Trapped Conversationalist thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Locke's Trapped Conversationalist thought experiment is intended to show that free actions require that one can do otherwise. In the experiment, a person is trapped in a room with a conversationalist who will only talk to them if they agree with everything the conversationalist says. The person is free to leave the room at any time, but if they do, they will never be able to talk to the conversationalist again. The person's choice of whether or not to leave the room is a free action, but it is not a free action in the sense that the person can do otherwise. If the person leaves the room, they will never be able to talk to the conversationalist again.

Question 7

Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist thought experiment is designed to challenge the notion of free will by suggesting that if your desires are manipulated or controlled by someone else (in this case, an ingenious physiologist), then your actions cannot be considered truly free. This is because your desires, which motivate your actions, are not authentically your own.

Question 8

Taylor's Drug Addiction thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Taylor's Drug Addiction thought experiment argues that traditional compatibilism's conditions (such as acting according to one's desires without external constraints) are not enough to ensure free action, as it shows a scenario where an addict acts according to their desires but seems not to act freely due to the compulsive nature of addiction.

Question 9

Frankfurt's Decision Inducer thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Frankfurt's Decision Inducer thought experiment argues that a person can be held responsible for their actions even if, due to external constraints, they could not have done otherwise, challenging the principle of alternate possibilities.

Question 10

Frankfurt's Unwilling and Wanton Addicts thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Frankfurt's thought experiment with Unwilling and Wanton Addicts is designed to illustrate the importance of second-order volitions in the concept of free will. It suggests that for actions to be considered free, individuals must be able to form second-order volitions (desires about desires) and act upon them. Without this ability, actions lack the autonomy that characterizes free will.

Question 11

Frankfurt's Happy Addict thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Frankfurt's Happy Addict thought experiment illustrates that a person is responsible for their actions if they act on their second-order volitions (desires about desires), regardless of their ability to do otherwise. This challenges the principle of alternative possibilities, suggesting that the ability to have acted differently is not necessary for moral responsibility.

Question 12

Slote's Hypnotized Patient thought experiment is intended to show that

Accepted Answer

Slote's Hypnotized Patient thought experiment challenges the view that acting freely merely involves acting on second-order volitions with which one decisively identifies. It suggests that even if a person acts on such volitions, if those volitions are the result of manipulation (e.g., hypnosis), the person's actions may not be truly free.

Question 13

According to hard determinism, human actions are like all other events in the universe, insofar as:

Accepted Answer

Hard determinism posits that human actions, like all events, are determined by past events and the laws of nature, negating the possibility of free will.

Question 14

Determinism differs from fatalism insofar as it maintains that

Accepted Answer

Determinism posits that the state of the future is a direct consequence of the past and present states, implying that if the past were different, the future would also be different. This contrasts with fatalism, which suggests that the future is fixed regardless of past or present actions.

Question 15

According to hard determinists, we think we are free but we really are not because:

Accepted Answer

Hard determinists argue that although we might feel free, our actions are actually determined by causes that we are not always aware of, suggesting that our sense of freedom is an illusion.

Question 16

While compatibilists argue that actions are free if they are caused by our desires, hard determinists argue that such actions are not free because

Accepted Answer

Hard determinists argue that actions are not free even if they are caused by our desires because they believe our desires are determined by external forces or prior causes beyond our control, thus negating true freedom of choice.

Question 17

Even though compatibilism admits that every human action has a cause, it still maintains that some actions are free insofar as:

Accepted Answer

Compatibilism holds that actions can be considered free if they are caused by internal factors, such as one's own will or desires, even if those actions have causes.

Question 18

Hard determinists claim that no one acts freely because all of our actions are caused by forces beyond our control. Indeterminists try to avoid the conclusion that no one acts freely because they believe that some actions are

Accepted Answer

Indeterminists argue that some actions are uncaused, which allows for the possibility of free will by suggesting that not all actions are determined by prior events or forces.

Question 19

Critics of indeterminism claim that if free actions are uncaused, then

Accepted Answer

Critics of indeterminism argue that if free actions are uncaused, then they cannot be explained, and consequently, no one can be held responsible for them. This encompasses both the issues of accountability and the possibility of explanation, making "All of the above" the correct choice.

Question 20

Hard determinists and libertarians agree that

Accepted Answer

Hard determinists and libertarians both hold that free will cannot coexist with causal determinism, but they diverge in their conclusions about the implications of this incompatibility. Hard determinists argue that since determinism is true, free will does not exist, while libertarians maintain that free will does exist, implying that determinism must be false.

Quiz 3: Free Will and Determinism