Free Will, Responsibility, and Blame in Psychotherapy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Zürcher
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Freedom Of Will ◽  
Patient’S Autonomy ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Therapeutic Context ◽  
The Relationship

Freedom of the will is not only an issue in the attribution of moral and legal responsibility—it also fundamentally shapes how we look at ourselves and how we interact with others. This is essential in everyday life but even more so in psychotherapy. In the debate on freedom of will, the main controversy is concerned with the relationship between determinism and free will. In this chapter, different positions are presented and discussed. The compatibilist viewpoint, which claims determinism and freedom of will to be compatible, is defended against competing theories and applied to psychotherapeutic work. Mental disorders affect free will in many ways, as is demonstrated by the examples. Nevertheless, a compatibilist approach to free will can be used as a resource to increase the patient’s autonomy. As a result, it is justified and sometimes appropriate within the therapeutic context to ascribe responsibility and, within certain limits, to express blame.

scholarly journals Edwards on the Incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will

Sententiae ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-45
Author(s):  
Oleh Bondar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Jonathan Edwards ◽  
Divine Foreknowledge ◽  
The Past ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Theological Fatalism ◽  
Nelson Pike ◽  
Necessity Of The Past

In the book “Freedom of the Will”, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) put forward a strong ar-gument for theological fatalism. This argument, I suppose, can be considered as the universal basis for discussion between Fatalists and Anti-Fatalists in the 20th century, especially in the context of the most powerful argument for fatalism, introduced by Nelson Pike. The argument of Edwards rests upon the following principles: (a) if something has been the case in the past, it has been the case necessarily (Necessity of the past); (b) if God knows something (say A), it is not the case that ~A is possible (Infallibility of God`s knowledge). Hence, Edwards infers that if God had foreknowledge that A, then A is necessary, and it is not the case that someone could voluntarily choose ~A. The article argues that (i) the Edwards` inference Kgp → □p rests upon the modal fallacy; (ii) the inference „God had a knowledge that p will happen, therefore „God had a knowledge that p will happen” is the proposition about the past, and hence, the necessarily true proposition“ is ambiguous; thus, it is not the case that this proposition necessarily entails the impossibility of ~p; (iii) it is not the case that p, being known by God, turns out to be necessary. Thus, we can avoid the inference of Edwards that if Kgp is a fact of the past, then we cannot freely choose ~p. It has also been shown that the main provisions of the argument of Edwards remain significant in the context of contemporary debates about free will and foreknowledge (Theories of soft facts, Anti-Ockhamism, theories of temporal modal asymmetry, „Timeless solution”). Additionally, I introduce a new challenge for fatalism – argument from Brouwerian axiom.

scholarly journals Wittgenstein on Freedom of the Will: Not Determinism, Yet Not Indeterminism

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Nadelhoffer
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Philosophical Problem ◽  
Secondary Literature ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will

Since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Freedom of the Will in 1989, his remarks about free will and determinism have received very little attention. Insofar as these lectures give us an opportunity to see him at work on a traditional—and seemingly intractable—philosophical problem and given the voluminous secondary literature written about nearly every other facet of Wittgenstein’s life and philosophy, this neglect is both surprising and unfortunate. Perhaps these lectures have not attracted much attention because they are available to us only in the form of a single student’s notes (Yorick Smythies). Or perhaps it is because, as one Wittgenstein scholar put it, the lectures represent only “cursory reflections” that “are themselves uncompelling." Either way, my goal is to show that Wittgenstein’s views about freedom of the will merit closer attention.

scholarly journals THE COMMUNITY WITHIN US: ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WILLE AND WILLKÜR

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto PIRNI
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Internal Dynamics ◽  
Negative Dimension ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Entire Faculty ◽  
The Relationship

Starting with an analysis of the concepts of Wille and Willkür, the essay distinguishes different meanings attributedto the freedom of the will (§ 1). Secondly, it distinguishes a positive from a negative dimension of that freedom, referred both to as Wille and Willkür (§ 2). Finally, the development of this aspect leads to a rethinking of the internal dynamics of the entire faculty of the will from a communitarian perspective (§ 3), by redefining as an a priori figure the relationship between singular subject and multiplicity of subjects, which Kant considered to operate already in the inner forum of every single being capable of reason.

Peter Lombard’s on God’s Will: Sententiae, Book I, Distinctions 45-46

2018 ◽  
pp. 136-152
Author(s):  
R. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
God's Will ◽  
Doctrine Of God ◽  
Divine Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Biblical Texts ◽  
The Given ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Theology Proper

The global Peter Lombard research continues, but the Master of the Sentences’ theology proper is still to be analyzed in detail. In particular, a more thorough exposition of the distinctions 45-48 of his Book of Sentences, which deal with the notion of God’s will and its relation to the human free will, has for some while remained a desideratum. The given article partly fills this lacuna and elucidates on the doctrine of the divine will as presented by the Lombard. In particular, it is shown that for him there exist two ways of speaking about God’s will: «simply and absolutely» and «not simply and absolutely» which may be identified with intransitive and transitive use of the verb «to will,» respectively. The will is primarily understood in terms of execution of one’s will (active willing) but its relation to one’s desires and inclinations (wanting) are downplayed or altogether omitted from the Lombardian doctrine of God. The divine will is by definition free and efficient but Lombard highlights that there is place for human free will, too. His explanation of the relationship between the divine and the human wills seems somewhat unconvincing but the unfolding of his theory on the basis of a few biblical texts should be acknowledged a peculiar theological exercise.

The Passions and Human Nature

2019 ◽  
pp. 71-89
Author(s):  
Jay L. Garfield
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
In Virtue Of

This chapter addresses the causes of the passions and their role in Hume’s psychology. I argue that the passions form the foundation of Hume’s naturalistic program to explain human nature and normativity. It also addresses the relationship between the passions and the idea of the freedom of the will, showing that the account of the passions undergirds Hume’s critique of the idea of freedom. This chapter also shows how central our social context is to the development of the passions, and to our psychology in general, in virtue of Hume’s argument that not only is our social nature determined by our passions, but that many of our passions are conditioned by social factors.

8. Freedom of the will

2020 ◽  
pp. 100-113
Author(s):  
Edward Craig
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Causal Chains

Do we have free will? ‘Freedom of the will’ starts by looking at Descartes, whose theology encouraged him to believe that he had free will. His thoughts may have been given by God, but he had the power to assent to them. Hegel’s metaphysics can teach us about his account of freedom. His predecessor Kant was possessed by the idea of moral obligations. Hegel argued that we are free, but that the decisions we make are the result of an idea, reason, or spirit. Finally, there is determinism—the idea that things happen because of causal chains—and compatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible.

Horses, Pigeons, and the Therapy of Conversion: A Psychological Reading of Jonathan Edwards's Theology

1981 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-352
Author(s):  
David R. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Jonathan Edwards ◽  
Freedom Of Will ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will

Jonathan Edwards expected his inquiry on the Freedom of the Will to be the definitive work on that subject, establishing for all time the truth of predestination on the twin pillars of reason and revelation. He answered every objection of the Arminians with irrefutable scriptural texts, biting satire, and devastating logic. He brought the revolutionary insights of Locke and Newton to the defense of Reformed doctrine, restructuring ancient truths on the foundations of the latest science.The effort was immediately successful. For sixteen years no one dared to publish a rebuttal. Then, in 1770, with Edwards safely dead, James Dana of Wallingford, Connecticut, published An Examination of the Late President Edwards's Enquiry on Freedom of Will.

Introduction

1992 ◽  
pp. 1-51
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Human Behaviour ◽  
Natural Connection ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will ◽  
Physical Causation ◽  
Philosophical Writings ◽  
Freedom Of Action

This chapter focuses on Cicero's treatise titled On Fate (De fato), which is part of the second group of his philosophical writings that dates from the period of Julius Caesar's ascendancy at the end of the Civil War and the period immediately after his assassination. It explains how De fato considers the relation of the gods to human affairs and problems that arise therefrom. It also discusses the natural connection between different occurrences that the Stoics spoke of as “sympathy” that may have some influence on human behaviour but not remove the freedom of action altogether. The chapter describes how Cicero is characteristically scornful of the arguments by Stoics and favors the view of Carneades that free will could be defended against the Stoics. It talks about the freedom of the will in antiquity that can be divided into areas concerned with physical causation and questions of logic.

The Struggle against Fate

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-67
Author(s):  
Benedetta Zavatta
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will

This chapter examines the influence that reading Emerson had on Nietzsche’s treatment of the theme of fate and free will, which is closely tied to two other central themes in Nietzsche’s philosophy: the theme of moral responsibility for one’s own actions, and that of the construction of one’s character, or self-creation. Though rejecting Emerson’s metaphysical assumptions regarding the freedom of the will and of thought, Nietzsche used certain suggestions provided to him by Emerson to work out an account of freedom as agency whereby to be free is not to act in a completely unconditioned way but rather to act as master of one’s own drives and guided by one’s own values. This chapter also examines the feeling of freedom which Nietzsche describes as the feeling of the preponderance of one’s own force vis-à-vis the force of external circumstances. Thanks to his reading of Emerson, Nietzsche comes to consider this feeling as compatible with the perception of necessity or the presence of immutable facts in one’s own life.

Moral Bioenhancement and Free Will: Continuing the Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
VOJIN RAKIĆ
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Moral Enhancement ◽  
Threshold Concept ◽  
Moral Bioenhancement ◽  
Political Concept ◽  
Freedom Of The Will ◽  
The Will

Abstract:This article continues and expands differences I have with Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu concerning issues of moral bioenhancement and free will. They have criticized my conception of voluntary moral bioenhancement, claiming that it ignores the extent to which freedom is a matter of degree. Here, I argue that freedom as a political concept (or as one that is analogous to a political concept) is indeed scalar in nature, but that freedom of the will is to be understood as a threshold concept and therefore not as subject to degree. Consequently, I contend, by asserting that freedom is a matter of degree, that Persson and Savulescu have not undermined my arguments favoring voluntary moral enhancement. In addition, I add three further arguments against compulsory moral bioenhancement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document