Q1: Explain the so-called Luck Argument against libertarian views of free will.

Can
Robert Kane’s position evade the argument?

Plan

Explain the luck argument

The Luck Argument against libertarian views of free will is a philosophical argument
that challenges the idea that individuals have complete control over their own
actions and choices. The argument asserts that any act or decision that an individual
makes is ultimately the result of a complex series of factors, including genetic
predispositions, past experiences, and external influences. Because these factors are
largely outside of an individual's control, the argument goes, the choices that an
individual makes cannot be considered truly "free" in the libertarian sense.

One way to understand the Luck Argument is to consider the idea of determinism,
which holds that all events, including human actions and choices, are determined by
prior causes and are therefore inevitable. According to this view, the choices that an
individual makes are not really the result of their own free will, but are instead the
product of the complex web of factors that have influenced them up to that point.

In contrast, libertarian views of free will hold that individuals have the ability to make
truly free choices, independent of external factors. The Luck Argument challenges
this view by pointing out that, even if an individual does have the ability to make free
choices, their choices are still influenced by a wide range of factors that are outside
of their control. Therefore, even if an individual is able to make a choice, that choice
is not truly free in the libertarian sense, because it is ultimately the result of a
complex series of factors that the individual had no control over.

Overall, the Luck Argument against libertarian views of free will suggests that our
ability to make choices and act on them is not as free and independent as some may
think. Rather, our choices are ultimately determined by a complex web of factors,
including our genetics, past experiences, and external influences, that we have little
or no control over.

The luck argument against libertarian views can be extended to include the idea of
indeterministic neuronal events, which are events or processes in the brain that are
not fully determined by prior causes. Indeterministic neuronal events may include
random fluctuations in the activity of neurons or other cells in the brain, as well as
other processes that are not fully understood.

According to this view, these indeterministic events can influence an individual's

thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in ways that are not fully determined by their own
choices or circumstances. This means that an individual's actions and outcomes may
be influenced by factors that are beyond their control, such as random events or
processes in their own brain.

The luck argument suggests that this indeterminism undermines the idea of
complete control and responsibility for one's own actions and outcomes, as it
suggests that there are factors that can influence an individual's choices and
behaviors that are beyond their control. This argument challenges the libertarian
view that individuals should be held fully responsible for their own actions and
outcomes, as it suggests that such a view ignores the role of indeterminism and luck
in shaping an individual's choices and behaviors.

Can Robert Kane’s position evade the argument?

Robert Kane is a philosopher who has developed a theory of free will known as
"libertarianism," which holds that individuals have the ability to make truly free
choices that are not determined by prior causes or external factors. Kane's theory
attempts to address the challenges posed by the Luck Argument against libertarian
views of free will.

According to Kane, the Luck Argument fails to take into account the fact that
individuals have the ability to reflect on their choices and to make conscious,
reasoned decisions. This ability to reflect and reason, Kane argues, gives individuals a
degree of control over the factors that influence their choices, allowing them to
exercise their free will in a meaningful way.

Kane's theory also emphasizes the role of moral responsibility in our ability to make
free choices. According to Kane, we are only able to hold individuals responsible for
their actions if they are able to make truly free choices. Therefore, the existence of
moral responsibility is evidence of the existence of free will, even in the face of the
challenges posed by the Luck Argument.

Overall, Kane's position on free will attempts to evade the Luck Argument by
emphasizing the role of reflection and reasoning in our ability to make free choices,
and by linking the existence of free will to the concept of moral responsibility.
However, Kane's position has been the subject of much debate and criticism, and it
remains unclear whether it is able to fully address the challenges posed by the Luck
Argument.

What is incompatibilism
Incompatibilism is the view in philosophy that free will and determinism are
incompatible, meaning that they cannot both be true at the same time. Determinism
is the idea that all events, including human actions and choices, are determined by
prior causes and are therefore inevitable. Incompatibilists argue that if determinism is
true, then individuals do not have free will, because their choices and actions are not
truly the result of their own free will, but are instead determined by prior causes.

There are two main types of incompatibilism: hard determinism and libertarianism.
Hard determinism is the view that determinism is true and that individuals do not
have free will. Libertarianism is the view that individuals do have free will, but that
this free will is incompatible with determinism. Libertarians argue that individuals are
able to make truly free choices that are not determined by prior causes or external
factors.

Incompatibilism is often contrasted with compatibilism, which is the view that free
will and determinism are compatible. Compatibilists argue that individuals can have
free will even if their choices and actions are determined by prior causes. This view is
often associated with the idea of "soft determinism," which holds that determinism is
true, but that individuals still have the ability to make choices and act on them in a
meaningful way.