Pereboom Argument free essay sample

Two thumbs up for Hard Incompatabilism Through Perebooms arguments we see how he argues against compatibilism, and how he presents to us four cases that will support his rejection against compatibilism. We will see how he delivers a way in which the agents will not be morally responsible for their actions, and succeeds in planting that seed of dought in us. Summary: In Pereboom’s argument, he discusses that it is because casual determinism is true that we lack this sort of free will that is required for moral responsibility, leading to him calling this hard incompatabilism. In Pereboom’s case for hard incompatibilism, it involves arguing against two competing positions. The first would be â€Å"Compatibilism which claims that free will of the type required for moral responsibility is compatible with determinism† (456). Which means that we do not have free will because it is something that is determined already which means we cannot be morally responsible for it. We will write a custom essay sample on Pereboom Argument or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page And we have the second position which is Libertarianism. Libertarianism contends that although the sort of free will required for moral responsibility is not compatible with determinism, it turns out that determinism is false, and we do have the kind of free will† (456-457). Pereboom then gives us four different cases where Professor Plum participates in the cases where we get to see how the actions of an agent are being manipulated, in which indicates that it is possible for the agent not to be morally responsible even if they meet the compatibilist conditions. The first case tells us about Professor Plum and how he was created by neuroscientist, and how they can manipulate him to undertake the process of reasoning. So forth that because his actions is determined by the neuroscientist his first desire to kill White conforms to his second order of desire. In case number two, Plum is an ordinary human being in which he has been programmed by the neuroscientist in the beginning of his life to weigh reasons for his actions, and because of his egoistic reasons he is casually determined to murder White. Third case, Plum is an ordinary human being except he was casually determined by his earlier childhood life and the experiences he had in his surroundings. He still has the first and second order of desire, which lead his egoistic side to killing White. In the last case, Plum is a normal human being raised in normal circumstances, and is as egoistic as he has been in the last three cases. He has the ability to use moral reasons to regulate his decisions, but his egoistic reasons weigh heavily on him, leading him to murder White. All four of these cases are different and we see four different positions in which Plum is put into. But is Plum morally responsible for each and every case according to Pereboom? Evaluation: In Perebooms argument against compatibilism, we see how he gives us these four cases to evaluate and to see if Plum has a reason to be morally responsible for his actions. In case one, we see how Plum is not morally responsible for the murder of White because his actions where predetermined by what the neuroscientist did. As Frankfurt proposes â€Å"moral responsibility requires that the agent have endorsed his/hers will to perform the action in the right way† (457). In case number two he is as well not morally responsible because his actions where predetermined in the beginning of his life, which means that it was those actions implemented in his early childhood that predetermined the killing of White. As for case three, because of casual determinations by factors that where beyond his control, explains the absence for moral responsibility. In all three of these cases so far, Plum meets all the compatibilist conditions. Now we see case four, the only difference we see in this case from the rest is that in this case, the crime is not brought about by other agents, meaning no one else is involved in the decision. Because Plums actions are casually determined in case number four, he cannot be morally responsible for his actions as Perbooms conveys. It is because of these four cases that lead Pereboom to reject compatibilism because compatibilism allows for an agent to be morally responsible for an action even when it is casually determined to act as he/she will. As we see in case 1-4, if an action results from any deterministic casual process that goes back to the agent’s control, then he/ she will not be morally or have the control to be morally responsible for it. As we see Pereboom does have a strong argument that leads us to believe that our actions are predetermined. As for us to be morally responsible, I believe that we are to be held responsible for our actions, because we can choose to carry out the actions or not. As Peerboom states and finishes off his argument, â€Å"we should conclude, I think, that if an action results from any deterministic casual process that traces back to factors beyond the agents control, then he will lack the control required to be morally responsible for it. †(460).