Intro To Philosophy Quiz Part- III

Rachels raises a valid point that experiencing oneself as being free when making a conscious choice does not necessarily mean that one is actually free. This suggests that our subjective experience of freedom may not always align with the objective reality of our freedom. Therefore, it is true that Rachels raises a problem with the Argument from Experience.

Compatibilism is a philosophical stance that argues that free will and determinism are compatible. According to this perspective, when individuals act freely, their actions are in line with their desires. However, compatibilism also acknowledges that these desires are influenced by external factors beyond an individual's control. Therefore, the correct answer, "True," aligns with the principles of compatibilism.

According to Rachels, Libertarianism faces a serious problem because if our actions are not determined by the Laws of Nature, then there is no plausible explanation for how they come about. This suggests that if our actions are not influenced by external factors or predetermined by natural laws, it becomes difficult to understand the reasons behind our actions. Therefore, the statement is true as it accurately reflects Rachels' perspective on the issue.

According to Rachels, if Libertarianism is true, it suggests that there is a part of us that is not controlled or determined by the Laws of Nature. This implies that there is an aspect of human behavior or decision-making that is free from causal determinism and allows for genuine freedom of choice. Therefore, the correct answer is true.

According to Rachels, if Determinism is true, it means that all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes and conditions. In this view, if we have complete knowledge of these causes and conditions, it would be possible to predict all actions in principle. Therefore, the statement that "if Determinism is true, then it follows that all actions are predictable in principle" aligns with Rachels' perspective and is true.

According to Rachels, free action and undetermined action are not the same thing. Just because the behavior of matter at the quantum level is undetermined does not mean that human actions are also undetermined. Free action involves more than just randomness or lack of determinism; it requires the presence of reasons, motives, and intentions. Therefore, the statement that free action is not the same as undetermined action is true.

According to Inwagen's argument, the main problem with Compatibilism is that it fails to acknowledge that our desires and values are determined by events in the remote past. This means that our current desires and values are not truly free or autonomous, but rather influenced by past events beyond our control. Therefore, the statement that Rachels makes is true.

Rachels argues that the presence of indeterminacy at the quantum level does not necessarily imply the existence of free will. While determinism may be false due to quantum indeterminacy, it does not automatically mean that humans possess free will. Free will is a complex concept that goes beyond the absence of determinism, and it involves factors such as conscious decision-making and personal autonomy. Therefore, the statement that free will follows from the falsity of determinism due to quantum indeterminacy is incorrect.

The statement is false because there are theories that argue for the compatibility of determinism and freedom. One such theory is compatibilism, which suggests that freedom can still exist even if determinism is true. According to compatibilists, freedom is not about having the ability to choose differently, but rather about acting in accordance with one's own desires and motivations. Therefore, even if our actions are determined by external factors, we can still be considered free as long as we are able to act in line with our own will.

The problem with the argument is that the conclusion (4) does not logically follow from the premise (3). Just because we cannot help believing that people have free will does not mean that people actually have free will. The argument fails to provide any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that people have free will. Therefore, the conclusion is not justified based on the given premises.

Rachels argues that even if we do not have free will, we can still reason. He believes that reasoning is a cognitive process that does not necessarily require free will. People can still analyze information, draw conclusions, and make decisions based on their understanding of the world, even if their actions are determined by external factors. Therefore, the statement that we cannot reason without free will is false according to Rachels.

Libertarianism is the correct answer because it posits that individuals have free will and are not determined by external factors or predestined outcomes. According to this view, when a person takes an action, they have the ability to choose differently if they so desire. It emphasizes personal agency and the belief that individuals have the power to make choices that are not solely determined by factors such as genetics or environmental influences.

The explanation for the given answer is that both the "Determinist Argument" and the Libertarian agree that if determinism is true, then no one is ever free. This means that according to both perspectives, if determinism, the belief that all events are determined by previous events and natural laws, is true, then human beings do not have free will and are not able to make choices freely. Therefore, the statement "If Determinism is true, then no one is ever free" aligns with the views of both the Determinist Argument and the Libertarian.

According to Rachels, both the Libertarian and the Compatibilist agree that we are sometimes free. This means that they both believe that there are instances in which individuals have the ability to make choices and act freely. However, they differ in their beliefs about determinism. The Libertarian believes that determinism is false and that individuals have free will, while the Compatibilist believes that determinism is true and that free will can still exist within a deterministic framework.

Rachels argues that when you criticize someone, you are essentially telling them what they should have done instead. This implies that they had the ability to choose a different course of action. Therefore, if no one is free, it would be odd to criticize anyone because they would not have had the ability to do otherwise. This explanation aligns with Rachels' perspective on the relationship between criticism and freedom of choice.

Rachels believes that if someone does not have free will, they are still responsible for their bad actions as long as they do not have any valid excuse for their behavior. This suggests that Rachels recognizes the importance of personal accountability even in the absence of free will.

Compatibilism is the view that free will and determinism are compatible. It argues that even though our actions may be determined by various factors, we can still be considered free as long as we are able to act according to our own desires and motivations. In other words, even if our actions are causally determined, we can still have the ability to make choices and act in accordance with our own will. Compatibilism reconciles the idea of determinism with the concept of free will, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive.

Rachels argues that providing explanations for a murderer's actions based on their genes, history, or brain chemistry does not absolve them of being a bad person. These factors may help us understand why they committed the murder, but it does not excuse or justify their actions. The murderer is still responsible for their choices and the harm they caused, regardless of any underlying factors that may have contributed to their behavior.

The given answer "None of the above" suggests that Rachels does not believe that any of the mentioned arguments (The Argument from Accountability, The Argument that We Cannot Predict our Own Decisions, The Argument From Experience) successfully demonstrate the existence of free will.

The correct answer is that things that occur at the sub-atomic level are determined. This statement aligns with Einstein's belief that the universe operates in a deterministic manner, meaning that events are predetermined and not subject to chance or randomness. Einstein's quote suggests that while there may be free will at the macroscopic level, the behavior of particles at the sub-atomic level follows strict laws of cause and effect.