Episode 51: Flickers of Freedom with Bradford Stockdale
Jan 23, 2023
auto_awesome
Dive into the intriguing concept of the 'flicker of freedom' strategy as we dissect classic Frankfurt cases. Explore the journey of philosophical inquiry sparked by pop culture, particularly The Matrix. Challenge your understanding of moral responsibility through the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. Navigate the fine line between determinism and personal agency, questioning the nature of autonomy. Finally, examine how moral freedom can exist even in deterministic scenarios, shedding light on deep philosophical debates.
34:07
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Flicker of Freedom Strategy defends the compatibility of free will with determinism by proposing subtle alternatives exist even in predetermined scenarios.
Brad Stockdale challenges the fine-grained flicker defense, illustrating complexities in moral responsibility when actions seem predetermined yet independent.
Deep dives
Introduction to the Flicker of Freedom Strategy
The discussion highlights the Flicker of Freedom Strategy as a response to Frankfurt cases in the free will debate, which questions the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). PAP posits that moral responsibility hinges on the ability to have acted differently. The importance of this principle lies in its implication that in a deterministic universe, where only one outcome is possible, agents would lack moral responsibility. The Flicker of Freedom Strategy proposes that even in such scenarios, individuals maintain a degree of freedom, often exemplified through nuanced alternatives, thereby defending the compatibility of free will with determinism.
Understanding Frankfurt Cases
Frankfurt cases serve as pivotal examples in the free will discussion, illustrating situations where individuals are held morally responsible despite lacking alternative choices. For instance, in a classic scenario, an individual named Jones is compelled to execute a morally significant action while unknowingly being manipulated by a neuroscientist. Such cases aim to demonstrate that a lack of alternative possibilities does not preclude moral responsibility, challenging the notion that multiple options are necessary for accountability. By analyzing these scenarios, the conversation examines the implications of moral responsibility within deterministic frameworks.
The Fine-Grained Flicker Defense
A more nuanced version of the Flicker of Freedom objection is the fine-grained flicker defense, which argues that agents in Frankfurt cases have subtle alternatives that retain their moral responsibility. Proponents suggest that the specific decisions made by an agent and the nuances surrounding those choices provide sufficient grounds for accountability, even in deterministic contexts. By examining this view, it comes to light that responsibilities may derive from previously made decisions, allowing for the possibility of moral agency within a framework that seemingly negates alternative options. This leads to ongoing debates surrounding the definitions of agency and accountability within deterministic scenarios.
Brad Stockdale's Critique of Fine-Grained Flicker Defense
Brad Stockdale critiques the fine-grained flicker defense by introducing a scenario involving a forgetful self-control guru, Gary, to illustrate challenges for the flicker theorist. In this case, Gary has a deterministic process in his brain that guarantees a specific decision will be made, yet it raises questions about whether he acted on his own. This case is designed to demonstrate that even if the decision appears predetermined, it can still be considered an independent act without external coercion. By exploring this example, Stockdale aims to reveal limitations in the flicker defense, arguing that moral responsibility in such a deterministic context complicates the established definitions of agency and control.