The Question of Free Will: A Holistic View

148 Pages·1993·9.779 MB·English

by  Morton White

The Question of Free Will
✣
other books by morton white
TheOriginofDewey’sInstrumentalism
SocialThoughtinAmerica
TheAgeofAnalysis(ed.)
TowardReunioninPhilosophy
Religion,PoliticsandtheHigherLearning
TheIntellectualVersustheCity(withLuciaWhite)
FoundationsofHistoricalKnowledge
ScienceandSentimentinAmerica
DocumentsintheHistoryofAmericanPhilosophy(ed.)
PragmatismandtheAmericanMind
ThePhilosophyoftheAmericanRevolution
WhatIsandWhatOughtToBeDone
JourneystotheJapanese(withLuciaWhite)
Philosophy,TheFederalist,andtheConstitution
The Question of
Free Will
A HOLISTIC VIEW
✣
orton hite
M W
princeton university press
Copyright1993byPrincetonUniversityPress
PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet,
Princeton,NewJersey08540
IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress,
Chichester,WestSussex
AllRightsReserved
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
White,MortonGabriel,1917–
Thequestionoffreewill:aholisticview/MortonWhite.
p. cm.
Includesindex.
ISBN0-691-03317-X
1.Freewillanddeterminism. I.Title.
BJ1461.W55 1993 123′.5—dc20 93-7104
ThisbookhasbeencomposedinAdobeUtopia
PrincetonUniversityPressbooksareprintedon
acid-freepaperandmeettheguidelinesforpermanence
anddurabilityoftheCommitteeonProductionGuidelines
forBookLongevityoftheCouncilonLibraryResources
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
2 4 6 8 10 9 7 5 3 1
TO NICK AND STEVE
✣
This page intentionally left blank
✣ CONTENTS ✣
Preface ix
Chapter 1:SomePreliminaryRemarks 3
1.AMoralPrincipleLinks“Ought”and“Can” 3
2.AnAsideontheAnalyticandtheSynthetic 5
3.WhatHavingFreeWillIs 7
4.HowWeKnowWeHaveFreeWill 9
Chapter 2:MoralObligationandFreedom 13
1.“HeOughttoDoA”DoesNotLogicallyImply“HeIsFree
toDoA”or“HeCanChoosetoDoA” 13
2.TheConjunctionof“HeOughttoDoA”with“HeIsNot
FreetoDoA”orwith“HeCannotChoosetoDoA”IsNot
Nonsensical 20
3.“Liberty...IsthePoweraManHastoDoorForbear
Doing”,Locke 26
Chapter 3:TheRelativityofFreedom 32
1.SomeUnsuccessfulEffortstoRenderFreeChoiceCompatible
withDeterminism 32
2.HowShouldWeInterpret“CiceroCanChoosetoKill
Caesar”? 36
3.AMoralBeliefDeterminesWhatanAppropriatePrecluder
Is,andThisMoralBeliefMayVaryfromPersontoPerson 46
4.TheArgumentuptoNow 50
Chapter 4:Expansion,Analysis,andFreeChoice 53
1.ExpandingandAnalyzing“CiceroCanChoosetoKill
Caesar” 55
2.WhatIsanAppropriateConditionalStatementinthe
Analysisof“CiceroCanKillCaesar”? 63
Chapter 5:“HeCanDoIt”,“HeWillDoItifHeChooses”,
“HeCanDoItifHeChooses”,and“HeCanChoose
toDoIt”:SomeViewsaboutHowTheyAreRelated 66
1.“HeWillifHeChooses”and“HeWouldHaveifHeHad
Chosen”AreCausalConditionals 67
CONTENTS
2.“HeCouldHaveWalkedifHeHadChosen”and“HeWould
HaveWalkedifHeHadChosen”:TheirRelationswithEach
Otherandwith“HeCouldHaveWalked” 70
3.Does“HeIsFreetoA”LogicallyImply“HeCanChoosetoA”? 76
4.RemarksonPossibleOpportunities 79
5.ADigression 81
6.FurtherRemarksonPossibleOpportunities 84
Chapter 6:Holism,Corporatism,andtheProblemof
FreeWill 88
1.HolismandCorporatism 89
2.TwoRivalConjunctions 94
3.ComparingTheseTwoRivals 100
4.TheProblemofAncestorialDetermination 107
Chapter 7:ConcludingRemarksonMoralBeliefand
FreeWill 118
1.TwoQuestionableInferences 118
2.TheTwoQuestionableInferencesMadebyJames 122
3.ARemarkonAristotle 127
4.InReplytoCertainObjections 130
IndexofProperNames 137
viii
✣ PREFACE ✣
I began to think seriously about free will in the early
1940s, when I was luckyenough tohavediscussed itwith
G.E.Moore.Inthelate1950smyinterestinitwasrevived
asaresultofdiscussionswithIsaiahBerlinthathavecon-
tinuedtothepresentday.AlthoughheandIdisagreeseri-
ouslyaboutfreewill,myexchangeswithhiminconversa-
tion and correspondence have helped me enormously. I
thereforethankhimwarmlyforenduringwhatmusthave
beengreatdisappointment as hereadcertainpartsofmy
manuscript.
Likeanyphilosopherwhohasmanagedtoreachmyage,
Ihavebenefitedgreatlyfromreadingworksonfreewillby
manyotherphilosophers, and Iwanttousethisoccasion
tomentionafewwhosewritingshavebeenespeciallyben-
eficialtomewhileworkingonthisbook.Theseareauthors
with whom I do not always agree, but the reader knows
that agreement is especially rare when the subject is free
will,whichHumecalled“themostcontentiousquestionof
metaphysics,themostcontentiousscience”.Aswillbeevi-
dent in the pages to follow, I have been helped greatly by
studying the writings of G. E. Moore, A. C. Garnett,Isaiah
Berlin,WilliamJames,JohnLocke,J.L.Austin,DonaldDa-
vidson, Roderick Chisholm, Aristotle, Peter Van Inwagen,
Harry Frankfurt, and KeithLehrer.Andas Iamsure thatI
haveforgottensomenamesthatdeservetobeonthislist,
Ihopethattheirlivingbearerswillforgivemysinsofomis-
sion, and that their dead ones—if such there be—will do
thesame.
Now I wish tothankthose whohavebeenkindenough
tohavereadthewholeofmylittleworkinmanuscript.As
usual,Ibeginbythankingmywife,LuciaWhite,fordoing
ix