Van Inwagen’s Philosophical Argument on Free Will Essay

Introduction

Van Inwagen argues that free will and determinism are incompatible, and asserts there is a weak relationship between propositions and allied notions, which include entailment, conjunction, and denial. The conjunctions also conform to the contraposition laws. Furthermore, any contrapositive is automatically regarded as true if the original proposition is true. Determinism also includes the idea of the general physical world.

The notion of a state should be treated in such a way that the physical condition of the world remains independent of logic. Indeterminism, the state should not be given first priority or allowed to affect the world’s momentary situation. Otherwise, the states cannot be as theoretical as they should be. The laws of physics have a great influence on the states and hence the description of determinism.

Free will determines the ability of an individual to act differently. Every person has free will, otherwise, there would be no difference between what people do and what they are capable of doing. As a result, it is easier to hold people responsible for acting the way they do since they have the chance to act in a different way. Some of the laws explaining the existence of free will have been rejected following their failure to sail through the approval experiments.

Inwagen uses the example of Aristotle and Plato to deliver his argument regarding propositions. Aristotle had enough reasons to disregard the last proposition of Plato. If people only cared about the ascriptions related to one’s ability, then Plato’s last proposition would have failed to hold. Since no one has the chance of unveiling the last true statement of Plato, it is difficult to make a decision based on Aristotle’s assertion.

One of the common tactics used by philosophers to show a certain argument does not hold is unveiling the illogical parts of that viewpoint. This tactic was also used by Aristotle to disapprove of Plato’s last statement. There are several ways through which philosophers can determine whether someone has done his best or not. Most of the philosophical arguments are generally complex and for that reason, it is difficult to extract the truth from them.

It is a fact that most of the actions people do are not for free. This follows the fact that they are foreseen by God. For instance, if someone was to insist that predestinarianism and the free will have to be compatible, then his argument would definitely be wrong. Only theses are compatible with one another. However, the compatibility may not be so obvious at times. In any case, there is always a conceptual connection between any two comparable theses.

Personal Argument and Views

It is obvious that people have free will; because if they did not have it, then alternatives to people’s acts would not exist. If someone refuses that human beings have free will, then he or she would be suggesting that there is a difference between what they do and what they can actually do. As a matter of fact, the concept of ‘can’ is what is normally used to hold a particular individual liable for an act.

It is difficult to explain the concept of ‘what people can do’. The term ‘can’ defines an individual’s ability or inability to carry out a particular action. It defines what someone ought to have done instead of what he or she has actually done. A good example is where an individual says another ought to have reached somewhere before a particular time of the day. In this case, the accused person may offer a proposition justifying his failure to have reached that place by the scheduled time.

Another example is about a person who has deliberately refused to carry out a task assigned to him or her. If determinism exists and it is compatible with free will, then such a person cannot be said to have refrained from accomplishing the duty. This shows that the ability or inability to perform a task depends on an individual. Therefore, it is true that people have free will, which compels them to do or fail to do a particular act.

Objection

The law of nature does very little to explain free will and determinism. There is no evidence that determinism and propositions are actually components of the law of nature. For instance, people do not have to formulate a technical framework to help them remember the events that will take place in the future. As a matter of fact, no single individual can claim to remember such events.

Response

Some philosophers argue that laws of physics are closely associated with determinism, and these rules are just a small part of the laws of nature. This argument holds to some extent; for instance, the proposition that determinism can only be verified if the physical laws are given a priority is true. It is also true that force is a product of mass and acceleration. However, not all physical laws can be regarded as natural.