Topic > Compatibilism versus incompatibilism: does it really exist...

Compatibilists and incompatibilists argue between determinism and free will. Determinism is the idea that our actions are determined by past events. In other words, in our current state we have no control over our actions and they are predetermined. Only one thing can happen given a certain condition and nothing else can happen. Determinism seems to pose a problem because it tests the possibility that we have no free will or control over our actions because under certain conditions there can only be one possible outcome. Another problem this poses with respect to the idea of ​​free will is that since there are infinite possibilities of what actions one takes, this means that we have no control over our actions according to determinism. Compatibilists claim that free will coexists with the idea of ​​determinism and that they are compatible. They affirm the possibility that true determinism and free will exist. Incompatibilists argue the opposite and claim that free will does not coexist with the idea of ​​determinism and they are incompatible. The claim they address is that there is no possibility that true determinism and free will exist. Robert Kane analyzes both sides in his attempt to show the differences between each side and draw possible conclusions on the issue and existence of free will. Compatibilists and incompatibilists agree that there are other worlds in which free will exists, but they disagree that determinism is true. Compatibilism is the idea that there is a connection between free will and the actions we take. We are solely responsible for the actions we take. Compatibilists believe that we can live in a predetermined life, but our free will remains unchanged. We all have free will in a predetermined context… middle of paper… versus compatibilists. The topic becomes very sloppy and seemingly endless to the point of not coming to any solid conclusions about free will and determinism. In response to both sides I remain neutral and believe both sides are flawed in their arguments because even though the incompatibles bring a slightly stronger argument to the table there is also a lot of underlying confusion, like the libertarian's dilemma. Compatibilities have a weak argument because they believe free will and determinism can coexist, but I don't see how that's possible because they are conflicting ideas. How can free will exist in a predetermined society when we have no idea whether we are part of a causal or physical chain? There are no real facts or conclusions on either side. Whether you choose to be compatibilist or incompatibilist, you can get lost in the argument on both sides.