1

Luke Baumgartner

7 May 2014

PHI-101-009: King

In Defense of Compatibilism

Compatibilism is a view in the field of philosophy that offers a solution to the
problem of free will and helps to answer the question of whether or not humans have
free will. Compatibilism offers a middle ground between two views of free will that
conflict with one another: causal determinism and free will. I will argue that
compatibilism is the best solution to the problem of free will.
Free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over
their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The idea of free will answers two types of questions: (1)
do we ever act freely? and (2) is causal determinism true? Causal determinism is the
view that every event that occurs is causally determined by some event preceding it. Let
us theorize, for example, that we have three worlds, each named W
2
,

W
1
, and W
0
, with
W
0
being the present world and

W
1
and W
2
directly preceding it. An event occurs in W
2
,
which, in turn, causes some event in W
1
to occur, therefore, causing the current world
that we are experiencing. Now, let us use this idea to demonstrate a more relatable
scenario: throwing a die. It is impossible to know or to predict what will happen when
this die is thrown or rolled, but some event, or events, that happened before the die was
thrown determined, or at the very least, influenced the outcome. To put it simply, the
outcome of rolling the die was determined since the beginning of the universe and there
was no way to determine this outcome. This is causal determinism. Causal determinism

2
is to be considered true for a couple of reasons, one of them being its connection to
science. Almost every one of the sciences assumes that it (causal determinism) is true
and that the sciences can only function under this assumption. Also, most of these
sciences have been successful in their respective fields. Another piece of evidence that
is in favor of causal determinism is that all thoughts seem to come from somewhere;
these thoughts are almost always connected to past experiences. This is why causal
determinism is true.
The incompatibility thesis states that the idea causal determinism and a person
having free will are incompatible with one another. Those who take this stance are
divided into two categories: hard determinists, who say that we do not have free will,
and libertarians (not to be confused with political libertarians), who say that we do have
free will. Compatibilism denies that the incompatibility thesis is true because the
definition of freedom is incorrect. With that being said, causal determinism cannot be
true if the old definition of freedom is true; they are incompatible with one another. If we
are to use the standard definition of freedom, then we run into a logical problem. Causal
determinism offers a definition of freedom that is one acts freely when one can choose
legitimately between at least two options. However, there is a problem with this
definition: there is no clear standard for what is defined as legitimate and what is not. In
addition to the problem regarding legitimacy, causal determinism indicates that this
definition of freedom does not and cannot exist in the real world. If causal determinism
were to be true, then you cannot legitimately choose between options.
According to compatibilism, the correct definition of freedom is this: you are free
if your decision is free from external influence. In other words, it comes directly from

3
your beliefs and desires. If some outside force is influencing your beliefs and desires,
then you are not really free. However, if there is no external influence, then your desires
and beliefs are original and you are free. Lets examine the process of thoughts and
actions and how they are connected a little more closely. If you form a desire to perform
an action and nothing prevents you from doing it, then you are free, despite the fact that
formation of that desire was already determined. For example, I am hungry and I desire
to purchase some food from a nearby vending machine. There was no individual or
other outside force telling me that I have hunger and that it needs to be satisfied.
Therefore, I acted freely in purchasing food from the vending machine. Because all
desires are the result of some cause, and that cause is the result of another prior cause,
etc., we are never in control of a chain of events.

Objection: What about cases of brainwashing? If someone has had their mind altered in
such a way to where they are not capable of acting on their own beliefs and desires, do
they still have free will? No, they do not since it was not their own motivations
influencing their actions. An example of this would be American prisoners of war during
the Korean War. American service members were captured by the Koreans and
brainwashed into thinking that America was the great Satan of the world. However, it
seems as though that the American prisoners of war were acting freely according the
definition of freedom. If it were true that they have a new set of beliefs and values and
they act in compliance with those new beliefs and values, then they are free. According
to Harry Frankfurt, there are two different sets of beliefs that every individual has: first
order beliefs, which are your normal beliefs, and second order beliefs, which are the

4
beliefs behind the first order beliefs. You are only free when your second order beliefs
are not manipulated; this overcomes brainwashing and hypnotism.

Reply: Arent we always manipulating our second order beliefs through agents of
socialization such as education? Yes because our second order beliefs are what
influences our first order beliefs. If it is true that we are constantly manipulating our
second order beliefs, then we would never be free, but this cannot be what Frankfurt
meant. Frankfurt must provide us with reasons and think cases of education are okay,
but not cult-like brainwashing.