24.221: Metaphysics                                      
Prof. Sally Haslanger
May 5, 2003

Second Paper Topics (Expanded Version)

Write a 5-7 page paper (assuming roughly 300 words per page) on one of the following topics. Be sure that your paper has a clear and comprehensible thesis; that it contains arguments for that thesis; and that it anticipates and responds to likely criticisms.  Papers are due on Thursday, May 15 by 5:00pm.  Deliver them to E39-245 or email them to shaslang@mit.edu.  

If you would like to discuss these topics, or comments on a draft, don't forget that David Etlin is available to help. You can reach him at etlin@mit.edu.  I am also happy to make an appointment with you or to respond to questions via email.

1.  Incompatibilists say that determined actions are unfree, but compatibilists disagree.  Consider one of the compatibilists we’ve discussed and explain how on their definition a determined action can be free.  Does this view resolve the conflict between free will and determinism.  Do you think it is the correct solution?  Why or why not?

2. In his essay, “Freedom and Necessity,” Ayer maintains:
...to say that my actions proceed from my character or, more colloquially, that I act in character, is to say that my behavior is consistent and to that extent predictable: and since it is, above all, for the actions that I perform in character that I am held to be morally responsible, it looks as if the admission of moral responsibility, so far from being incompatible with determinism, tends rather to presuppose it. (18)
Critically discuss this view.  What is Ayer’s point?  Do you find it convincing?  What might a libertarian say?

3.  Is freewill required for moral responsibility?  Why or why not?  (Please demonstrate that you are familiar with the arguments for and against this that we’ve considered in class, while developing your own argument.)

4.  In his essay, “Freedom and Resentment”, Strawson suggests that the pessimist is missing something important about the role of freedom and responsibility in our lives.  What is the pessimist’s charge against the optimist (see especially section II, pp. 60-62)?  On Strawson’s view, what exactly is the pessimist missing?   What does the pessimist get right and what does the pessimist get wrong?   Do you agree with Strawson?  Or do you think the pessimist still has a case against the optimist?  Why or why not?

5.   In his essay, “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person,” Frankfurt maintains:
It is in securing the conformity of his will to his second-order volitions then, that a person exercises freedom of the will.  And it is in the discrepancy between his will and his second-order volitions, or in his awareness that their coincidence is not his own doing but only a happy chance, that a person who does not have this freedom feels its lack.  The unwilling addict’s will is not free.  This is shown by the fact that it is not the will he wants. (90-91)
Provide an interpretation and critical evaluation of this passage.  What exactly is required for an agent to have freewill, on Frankfurt’s view?  What arguments does Frankfurt to support this view.  (Note that in the first sentence of this passage, there occurs a ‘then’, which makes it seem that Frankfurt is providing what follows as a conclusion to an argument…what is the argument?)  What are the strengths and weaknesses of Frankfurt’s account?  Do you agree with him?

6.  Roderick Chisholm defends a libertarian view of freewill, employing the notion of agent causation.  He says:
We must not say that every event involved in the act is caused by some other event; and we must not say that the act is something that is not caused at all.  The possibility that remains, therefore, is this: We should say that at least one of the events that are involved in the act is caused, not by any other events, but by something else instead.  And this something else can only be the agent—the man.  If there is an event that is caused, not by other events, but by the man, then there are some events involved in the act that are not caused by other events.  But if the event in question is caused by the  man then it is caused and we are not committed to saying that there is something involved in the act that is not caused at all. (28)
Explain the hard determinist’s dilemma of freewill that generates the problem that Chisholm is responding to; explain what Chisholm’s view is; and discuss whether and to what extent his view provides an adequate solution to the problem.  What, in particular, are the strengths and weaknesses of Chisholm’s idea of agent causation?  Do you agree with Chisholm’s analysis?  Why or why not?


Students may write on a topic of their own construction, if it is approved in advance.  Submit your proposed topic to the instructor (preferably by email) by 3/17/03.