Argument against libertarianism
I recently heard an argument against libertarianism, and it goes like this:
- Something that has a cause is deterministic.
- Something that has no cause is random.
- Everything either has a reason or it has no reason (the statement is true by its very form).
- Free choice is neither random nor deterministic, nor is it random and deterministic.
- Therefore: there is no free choice.
Ostensibly, the answer would be that this is a false choice, and that there is a state of free choice that is neither randomness nor determinism (neither elections in Syria nor in Switzerland) – this is how the Rabbi solved Van Eywagen’s dilemma argument. Although in reality, if a choice is neither caused nor not caused, then it does not exist (the third unavoidable principle).
What does Moreno think?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If there is no cause, then what is the difference between randomness and causality in the *mechanism* of choice? I don't remember any reference to this in your book ‘The Science of Freedom’ (in the chapter on the phenomenology of libertarianism)…
You mean to ask what the difference is between randomness and choice (both without cause). I explained this at length there. I argued for an explanation in terms of purpose versus cause and lack of cause (randomness). I talked about discretion, etc.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
