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
    Rational wills that are negatively free must be autonomous. — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Rational wills that are negatively free must be autonomous.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The will is a kind of cause, since willing causes action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causation implies universal regularities: if x causes y, there is some universally valid law connecting Xs to Ys.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the will causes an action, then the willing is connected to the action by some universal law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative freedom (absence of external determination) is compatible with the will being governed by non-self-authored rational laws that are discovered, not legislated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's move from 'not governed by natural law' to 'must be self-legislated' illicitly excludes a third option: governance by objective rational norms independent of any will's authorship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plato's Form of the Good and Frege's logical realism both demonstrate that rational constraint by mind-independent normative facts is coherent and does not collapse into heteronomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument assumes that all causation requires universal laws connecting cause-types to effect-types, but agent-causation theorists like Roderick Chisholm hold that agents cause actions without subsuming them under any covering law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent causation is coherent, a negatively free will can cause action through irreducibly particular causal agency, undermining Premise 2's universality requirement and severing the path to autonomy.
      ?

      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

    Rights & LibertyFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation5 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Causation implies universal regularities: if x causes y, there is some universal...If agent causation is coherent, a negatively free will can cause action through ...If the will causes an action, then the willing is connected to the action by som...Kant's move from 'not governed by natural law' to 'must be self-legislated' illi...
    +6 moreShow less
    Negative freedom (absence of external determination) is compatible with the will...Plato's Form of the Good and Frege's logical realism both demonstrate that ratio...The argument assumes that all causation requires universal laws connecting cause...

    Similar

    Having the will governed by such natural laws is inconsistent with the...79%A will that is free in the negative sense does not operate through the...79%Practically rational beings are autonomous, meaning their wills can be...78%A will free in the negative sense must be physically and psychological...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    Crucially, rational wills that are negatively free must be autonomous, or so Kant argues. This is because the will is a kind of cause—willing causes action. Kant took from Hume the idea that causation implies universal regularities: if x causes y, then there is some universally valid law connecting Xs to Ys. So, if my will is the cause of my φing, then Φing is connected to the sort of willing I engage in by some universal law. But it can’t be a natural law, such as a psychological, physical, che
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The will is a kind of cause, since willing causes action.
    Therefore, the law governing the will must be one authored by the rational agent...
    This law cannot be a natural law (psychological, physical, chemical, or biologic...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit