Compatibilism: Crash Course Philosophy #25

Summary

This Crash Course Philosophy episode explores the concept of free will through the lens of compatibilism, which reconciles determinism with the idea of free actions determined internally. It discusses the implications of a brain tumor case on moral responsibility and introduces Frankfurt Cases, challenging the necessity of alternate possibilities for free will. The episode also touches on Patricia Churchland's view on the degree of freedom in actions based on可控性, suggesting that moral responsibility is tied to the level of control one has over their actions.

Takeaways

• 🧠 A man's pedophilic impulses were linked to a brain tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, which controls sexual impulse.
• 🤔 The case raises questions about free will versus determinism in behavior, especially when influenced by medical conditions.
• 🔄 Compatibilism (soft determinism) suggests that actions can be considered free if determined by internal factors, even in a deterministic universe.
• 💡 The analogy of being pushed vs. jumping off a diving board illustrates the compatibilist view on the source of action determination.
• 🤷‍♂️ Compatibilism acknowledges moral responsibility for self-determined actions, a concept that hard determinism seems to negate.
• 🧪 The man with the brain tumor scenario challenges the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which states that free actions require the ability to do otherwise.
• 🗳️ Frankfurt Cases, like the Democratic voter with a hypothetical brain device, argue for moral responsibility despite a lack of alternate possibilities.
• 🤝 Patricia Churchland proposes that 'how much control' over actions is more relevant than the binary question of free will.
• 🧪 She suggests that our brains can be trained to develop control, implying that freedom can be increased through personal development.
• 🍻 The script discusses how factors like alcohol consumption and social pressure complicate the distinction between internal and external influences on actions.
• 🔧 Libertarians argue that all actions are determined and thus not truly free, challenging the compatibilist and Churchland's viewpoints.

Q & A

What is the main philosophical question raised by the story of the man with the brain tumor?

The main philosophical question is whether the man's behavior was a matter of free will or determined by a medical condition, specifically the tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex.

What are the two metaphysical positions discussed in the script regarding the freedom of our actions?

The two metaphysical positions discussed are hard determinism and libertarian free will.

What is compatibilism and how does it differ from hard determinism and libertarian free will?

Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the belief that while the universe operates with law-like order and the past determines the future, some human actions can still be considered free, particularly when the determination comes from within ourselves.

How does the analogy of being pushed off a diving board versus jumping illustrate the compatibilist view?

The analogy illustrates that both actions result in the same outcome (ending up in the water), but the cause is different. Compatibilists argue that even though the action is determined, if it is self-determined, it can be considered free.

What is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities and how does it relate to the concept of free will?

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the belief that for an action to be free, an agent must have been able to do something other than what they did. It challenges the compatibilist view by suggesting that without alternate possibilities, actions cannot be considered free.

Who is Harry Frankfurt and what is his argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities?

Harry Frankfurt is a contemporary American philosopher who argues that an agent can be morally responsible for their actions even when they couldn't have done otherwise, challenging the necessity of alternate possibilities for free will.

What is a Frankfurt Case and how does it challenge our understanding of free will?

A Frankfurt Case is a hypothetical situation where an agent appears to act freely but is actually being manipulated or controlled in some way. It challenges the understanding of free will by suggesting that moral responsibility can exist even without the possibility of alternate actions.

How does Patricia Churchland's view on free will differ from compatibilism?

Patricia Churchland rejects the dichotomy of free or not free and instead focuses on the amount of control an individual has over their actions. She suggests that the more control we have, the more responsibility we also have.

What does Churchland suggest is the wrong question to ask regarding free will?

Churchland suggests that asking 'Am I free?' is the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking 'How much control do I have?'

How does the script relate the concept of free will to our brain's ability to control behavior?

The script suggests that disturbances in the brain, such as tumors, can undermine our control, but also that our brains can be trained to develop control over behavior, implying that the feeling of freedom is related to the level of control we have over our actions.

What is the significance of the Squarespace advertisement in the context of the script?

The Squarespace advertisement serves as a sponsor message and is not directly related to the philosophical content of the script. It is included to support the production of the Crash Course series.