Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A player's decision is not as free under eternalism as it... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A player's decision is not as free under eternalism as it would be if the future were ontologically open.

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Under eternalism, the four-dimensional block universe fixes all events timelessly, leaving no causal power for deliberation to alter outcomes (cf. Pereboom's hard incompatibilism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine freedom requires that deliberation be causally efficacious in selecting among real alternatives, not merely epistemically uncertain about a fixed result.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the player's choice is already ontologically settled in the block universe, deliberation is epiphenomenal, which Frankfurt's own conditions for moral responsibility presuppose it cannot be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Storrs McCall's branching-universe model grounds freedom in the objective pruning of future branches, entailing that ontological openness is a necessary condition for genuine alternative possibilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen's consequence argument shows that if the future is as fixed as the past, the player cannot do otherwise, violating the Principle of Alternative Possibilities central to libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Eternalism implies that the player's decision is ontologically determinate before it is made.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is true today what the player will decide tomorrow under eternalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the future is ontologically open, it is not yet ontologically determinate what the player's choice will be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Eternalism implies that the player's decision is ontologically determinate befor...Genuine freedom requires that deliberation be causally efficacious in selecting ...Greater ontological openness of the future corresponds to greater freedom of dec...If the future is ontologically open, it is not yet ontologically determinate wha...
    +5 moreShow less
    If the player's choice is already ontologically settled in the block universe, d...It is true today what the player will decide tomorrow under eternalism.Storrs McCall's branching-universe model grounds freedom in the objective prunin...Under eternalism, the four-dimensional block universe fixes all events timelessl...Van Inwagen's consequence argument shows that if the future is as fixed as the p...

    Similar

    A player's decision is free even under eternalism, provided the decisi...92%A player cannot have free choice if eternalism is true88%If the future is ontologically open, it is not yet ontologically deter...87%It is true today what the player will decide tomorrow under eternalism...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: causation-backwards
    View source passageHide passage
    Philosophers who reject eternalism may not leave the discussion here. They could argue that it may very well be the case that the player’s choice is neither causally determined by past events nor by future events. Yet, eternalism implies that the player’s decision is ontologically determinate before it is made, since it is true today what she will decide tomorrow. Therefore she is not as free as she would be if the future is ontologically open, i.e., it is not yet ontologically determinate what
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit