Determinism, Compatibilism, Incompatibilism

Determinism is a philosophical standpoint, which advocates that every action and event, including humans mental processes and decisions ordure be predicted using chains of previous occurrences. In this manner, humans futures are not unavoidably predetermined but can be shaped and influenced by past and present circumstances. Compatibilism is a philosophical viewpoint, which postulates that free will and determinism are complementary ideas. superfluous will can be defined as mans freedom to choose and be responsible for his actions and decisions.Compatibilists believe that as long as mans actions and decisions are not forced on him, or he is not constrained or coerced to do anything he doesnt want, then he is exercising his free will. In theological aspect, compatibilism argues that even if God is all-knowing, He didnt took away from man his capacity to decide whether hed choose the right or wrong path. Man is left with the moral state of his actions. Incompatibilism, as the term implies, is a notion that is opposite to that of compatibilism.Incompatibilists argue that free will and determinism are not complementary. There are two types of incompatibilism. First is the libertarianism, which states that the foundation cant be deterministic and believers of this concept assert that free will exists. The second one is called hard determinism, which asserts that determinism exists but it is not compatible with free will. The Consequence telephone line was formulated by Van Inwagen to support the Incompatibilists assertion that free will and determinism can never go together.This argument operates on the no-choice premise, which states that if determinism exists, then man has no control over events and the natures laws, and their consequences. There are two inferences that support Inwagens argument Inference A man has no choice of what went on before his clock and how things happened prior to his birth Inference B man has no choice on the laws of nature and ho w they affect and shape events of the present and future. From these inferences, Inwagens argument concludes that the result or consequences of the natural laws and past occurrences are not up to man.Man, therefore, has no choice. If I were a compatibilist, I would argue against the Consequence Argument by contradiction. If I can prove that either A or B is not true, then, that would negate Van Inwagens claim that incompatibilism is true. For instance, if Rauls father died because of weak lungs and Raul also has weak lungs because of his genetic cast up, then Inference A would be true because he cant do anything about his genes. The natural conclusion, under determinism, would for Raul to also die because of weak lungs.However, Raul can keep back Inference B false by taking care of himself and avoiding any substance that would further weaken his lungs. He can also fight his intend by taking medicines and exercising. Raul has every chance of overcoming his weakness and need not di e from weak lungs. Even if Raul has no choice about his genetic exploit up, he still has a choice on how to address this matter. Since Inference B is proven false, then, the Consequence Argument does not hold true.