Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A truly necessary being acts from the necessity of its own nature, not from contingent choices between alternatives that libertarian freedom requires.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Logical necessity of nature differs from causal constraint; the former may be compatible with genuine freedom.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Defining freedom as requiring choosability between alternatives begs the question against compatibilist accounts of freedom.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Necessity of nature might entail acting without external determination while still constituting authentic agency and choice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Contingency implies dependence on external factors; a truly necessary being cannot depend on anything external to itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Libertarian freedom requires the ability to choose otherwise; but a necessary being cannot coherently have done otherwise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Actions flowing from necessity of nature are more perfect than those requiring deliberation between alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.