Choose and answer one of the following questions. If there is another question you’d like to explore but still relevant to a topic, please consult with the subject coordinator before beginning:
1. Hard determinists believe that humans have no free will because we are determined just like any other physical system in the universe while libertarians believe that, on the contrary, we are free. After describing each position, argue for which side do you think is the more reasonable to adopt?
2. Libertarians about free will appeal to indeterminism in order to assure the existence of human freedom. Do you think the facts they provide for motivating indeterminism are sound, or do you think they provide questionable interpretations about the nature of people and physical systems? Even if indeterminism is true, perhaps at the quantum level, do you think this helps the libertarian? Why or why not?
3. Recent findings from neuroscience have begun to paint a dim picture of one’s ability to be in conscious control of oneself. Do you think that these and similar scientific findings cast doubt on the reality of free will? Or do you think that these results overreach by attempting to answer philosophical disputes?
4. Compatibilists think that being considered free is consistent with being physically determined while incompatibilists disagree. Which side makes the better case? Outline and assess.
5. One way people have made sense of talk of necessity and possibility is through possible worlds where, for instance, a necessary truth is one that is true in all possible worlds. This raises the interpretative question of whether or not to treat uses of possible worlds in analyzing modality as referring to actually existing other worlds instead of fictitious objects. Do you side with those who treat possible worlds as concrete entities or with those who interpret them away as useful fictions? Present an argument for your case.