We humans always question ourselves if we are free. We have different views to explain our freedom. Libertarianism argues that we are free because we think we are free. Determinism argues also that all our actions are caused by actions done in the past. Compatibilism also argue that we are free because we choose our own actions internal to ourselves even when there is a restriction that hinders you to choose your own choice. Existentialism is also a view that argues if to be in control of ourselves, then that means that we are masters of ourselves and therefore make us free.
Is compatibilism the right view? Compatibilism argues that all our actions are predetermined and that there will be a point where we can choose for ourselves. This view is relevant as we have social responsibility for the actions we have for example A man were to vote for the B party and the B party had a device installed in his mind that whenever he will choose to vote for the C party he will be forced to vote for B party. The man voted for B party. He is responsible for voting B party but lacks the freedom to choose because of the device. The question would be is he morally responsible for the action that he has done knowing of the presence of the device? This type of case or as they call it Frankfurt cases are presented in compatibilism views. The
…show more content…
The man will vote for the B party as determined by nature millions of years ago. We can see that he does not have a choice because it was already determined millions of years ago. However, the cases presented could not sufficiently motivate compatibilism but the way I see the cases seems that compatibilism stresses more on moral responsibility than the actual free will itself. But why do we argue with ourselves about free will? Is it not to give blame to a person doing a wrong act or to just give blame to a