Compatibilist vs. Incompatibilist

Attribute	Compatibilist	Incompatibilist
Free will	Believes free will is compatible with determinism	Believes free will is not compatible with determinism
Moral responsibility	Believes individuals can still be morally responsible even if determinism is true	Believes moral responsibility requires the absence of determinism
Definition of free will	Defines free will as the ability to act according to one's own desires and reasons	Defines free will as the ability to act without any prior causes determining one's actions
Compatibilism	Advocates for the compatibility of free will and determinism	Rejects the idea that free will and determinism can coexist

Definition of Compatibilism and Incompatibilism

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible concepts. In other words, individuals can have free will even in a world where events are determined by prior causes. On the other hand, incompatibilism argues that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Incompatibilists believe that if determinism is true, then free will is not possible.

View on Free Will

Compatibilists believe that free will can exist even in a deterministic universe. They argue that free will is not about being able to choose any possible action, but rather about being able to act according to one's own desires and motivations. Incompatibilists, on the other hand, reject the idea that free will can coexist with determinism. They believe that if our actions are determined by prior causes, then we cannot truly be free to choose otherwise.

Responsibility and Moral Agency

Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be held morally responsible for them. They believe that moral responsibility is not contingent on the ability to have chosen otherwise, but rather on the ability to act in accordance with our own values and beliefs. In contrast, incompatibilists believe that without free will, individuals cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. They argue that true moral agency requires the ability to have chosen differently.

Implications for Ethics and Law

Compatibilism has important implications for ethics and law. If free will can coexist with determinism, then individuals can be held accountable for their actions and society can establish moral and legal norms. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined, we can still make meaningful choices and be held responsible for them. In contrast, incompatibilism challenges the foundations of moral and legal systems. If free will is not possible in a deterministic universe, then concepts of guilt, punishment, and reward may need to be reevaluated.

Compatibilist and Incompatibilist Philosophers

• Some famous compatibilist philosophers include David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, and Daniel Dennett. These philosophers argue that free will is compatible with determinism and that individuals can still make meaningful choices in a determined world.
• On the other hand, prominent incompatibilist philosophers include Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Galen Strawson. These philosophers reject the idea that free will can coexist with determinism and challenge the traditional notions of moral responsibility and agency.

Conclusion

Compatibilism and incompatibilism represent two contrasting views on the relationship between free will and determinism. While compatibilists argue that individuals can have free will even in a deterministic universe, incompatibilists believe that free will is incompatible with determinism. These differing perspectives have profound implications for ethics, law, and our understanding of human agency. Ultimately, the debate between compatibilism and incompatibilism continues to be a central issue in philosophy and has far-reaching consequences for how we understand ourselves and our place in the world.