Discover published sets by community

Moral Responsibility Skepticism challenges the notion that people can be morally responsible for their actions in a determinist framework. Argument: If our choices are determined by factors beyond our control, moral culpability is undermined.

Deterministic chaos explains that behavior of complex systems is both determined and unpredictable. Argument: Chaos theory provides a deterministic framework that allows for unpredictable outcomes, suggesting the limits of determinism in predicting specific events.

Indeterminism holds that not all events are determined by preceding causes, and that some events are truly random. Argument: Quantum mechanics suggests that reality at fundamental levels involves probabilities, not certainties, which allows for freedom.

Deep Self-Compatibilism claims that free will entails actions that are congruent with one's deep values and reflective self. Argument: Even if determinism is true, a person's will is free when they act according to their deeply held values.

Soft Determinism, often associated with compatibilism, claims that while behavior is determined by prior states, individuals still have free will. Argument: The focus is on the ability to act according to one's own desires and plans, not on the origin of those desires.

Incompatibilism states that free will and determinism cannot both be true at the same time. Either our actions are free or they are determined. Argument: True free will requires that we could have acted differently under identical conditions.

Event-Causal Libertarianism maintains that although prior events influence decisions, they do not determine them completely. Argument: Individuals' actions can still be free as long as they are not strictly determined by past events.

Existentialist Freedom emphasizes the individual's responsibility to create meaning in an otherwise indifferent or meaningless universe. Argument: Regardless of the deterministic nature of the universe, humans are free to give their own lives purpose.

Compatibilism argues that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. People can be morally responsible even if their actions are determined. Argument: Free will can be understood as freedom from external coercion and the capacity for rational deliberation.

Libertarianism asserts that free will is real and that determinism is false. People can take more than one possible action under a given set of circumstances. Argument: If free will didn't exist, moral responsibility would be an illusion.

Agent-Causal Libertarianism proposes that agents have the power to cause actions independent of any deterministic framework. Argument: Agents possess unique causal powers that allow them to initiate new causal chains.

Hard Determinism holds that free will does not exist because events are determined by past events and laws of nature. Consequently, every event or action is the result of previous events. Argument: Since our decisions are predetermined, moral responsibility doesn't truly apply to our actions.

Hierarchy Theory proposes that we possess free will when our desires to act are aligned with higher-order desires. Argument: This allows for a form of free will that is compatible with some versions of determinism, emphasizing reflective endorsement.

Illusionism posits that while our experiences suggest that we have free will, it is actually an illusion. Argument: Psychological and neuroscientific evidence shows that our sense of free agency is constructed by the brain, rather than an accurate reflection of free will.