The article takes a stab at the problem of free will through an overview of previously made philosophical stances on free will. Fried focuses in on how our society deals with bame, and what she thinks about it.
She starts out the article by discussing the question: if all choices are determined, can there be free will? By critiquing other philosopher’s points of view Fried relates blame to its cost by looking at the US prison system and the perspective of the fault of individuals instead of individuals being caught up in their environments.
Fried discusses the view points on free will in mostly two groups; compatibilism which is that both free will and determination exist, and incompatibilism which is what we called Hard determinism in class, or the notion that everything is determined and there is no free will. Since
…show more content…
She then takes on compatibilism, which continues to assign blame even after admitting (hypothetically) to determinism. According to Fried, this is an old problem, and she references Jonathan Edwards to show what is wrong with it.
Fried ultimately argues that compatibilism does not give a standardized basis for assigning blame, however she first gives an example of a bus driver that, even after exercising all proper care, is unfortunate enough to hit a child with his bus. Author believes we would blame this person, and this is unfair because when things happen so quickly, no one would be able to change their path to avoid the child (pg6). The "indigestible core" of compatibilism is that it is all "fate" that determines every action. Fried then acknowledges she is a Skeptical incompatibilist.
In the next part of the paper Fried takes on the reasoning as to why most people want to hold onto the concept of free will and to, “Make the world safe for blame”