Hume says that if an action is not caused, then it is just a random, chance acti

Question

Hume says that if an action is not caused, then it is just a random, chance action - not a free action.  But James says that if an action is caused, then it had to happen and nothing else could have happened. Thus a free act must involve choosing between genuine future possibilities, which requires that the free act was not caused.  Which view of a free act is preferable, the soft determinist's view of a free yet caused action, or the libertarian view of a free and uncaused action? Justify your choice. (5 sentence minimum)

Explanation / Answer

I believe that even for a free act, there has to be a caused action.

According to compatibility or soft determinism, Ayer says that even though humans are free, they are morally responsible for some of their behaviour, even though behaviour is caused by certain factors that are not in our control. Even though the actions are due to some or the other cause, we as humans always have the choice to chose whether to perform or not perform that action. But if causality is completely rejected, the person would be morally responsible for all of his actions. And for random actions, no one is responsible. Thus, if there were no determining cause, there would be no one held morally responsible for any act. Hence, Ayer says that the indeterminists are mistaken when they believe that for moral responsibility there should not be a determining cause. Hence, there has to be a cause for every action.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.