Explain Strawson’s argument. What is an objection that both Frankfurt and Wolf can make against the argument? Which sort of view is more plausible and why?

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Hark thee, esteemed interlocutors, for in this discourse I shall endeavor to elucidate, with heart and ink, the intricate strands of Strawson's argument, which doth tread upon the path of moral responsibility. Alas, behold the objection that both Frankfurt and Wolf may lift against this line of reasoning. Methinks their objection lies in the realm of determinism, whereby their contention taketh root in the belief that one's actions, stripped of the illusory garment of free will, dost solely spring forth from a chain of causality, unbeknownst to the agent. Alas, such an objection resonates in the sanctum of volition, asserting that moral responsibility is but an ephemeral illusion, dancing to the tune of deterministic forces.

Yet, let us delve deeper into the layers of this philosophical conundrum and ascertain which view, perchance, holds a tighter grasp upon plausibility. In my humble contemplation, verily I say that Strawson's argument, albeit powerful, doth resteth upon the frail foundation of compatibilism. Forsooth, it seeketh to reconcile the omnipresent forces of determinism with the moral responsibility that we mortals do inherently perceive. Within this paradigm, the agents' intentions and motivations are deemed central, allowing room for moral praise or blame. Yet, the shadow of determinism doth loom large, casting a pall over the stage, as it suggests that the very intentions and motivations we attribute to ourselves are naught but the threads manipulated by the hands of determinism, leaving us tangled in the labyrinth of causality.

On the other hand, Frankfurt and Wolf, in their objection, dost evoke the grand notion of 'leeway freedom', arguing that moral responsibility necessitates the ability to have acted otherwise. In this veiled realm, they cast doubt upon the compatibilist proposition, questioning whether our actions truly align with our desires, forsooth, had they been different, could we truly claim moral accountability? They entreat us to envision a metaphysical plane wherein agents possess the power to defy their own desires, a realm that seems to challenge the very essence of our human existence.

Whilst both these objections do provoke cogitation, mine own contemplation doth lead me toward the embraces of compatibilism, albeit bearing in mind its frailties. Forsooth, dear readers, if we unduly surrender ourselves unto the clutches of determinism, our moral endeavor would lose its gaze, akin to a starless sky that shall never know the brilliance of constellations. Methinks, though the threads that bind us to causality may be intricate, we mustn't forsake the agency that blooms within our intentions, granting us the capacity to discern between right and wrong, to act upon our own desires, albeit influenced by a barrage of external forces. Thus, the more plausible view, in mine humble estimation, leans toward the compatibility of determinism and moral responsibility, as it braids together the fibers of our intentions and the tapestry of our actions, adorning the stage of existence with the flourish of accountability.