The Consequence Argument Analysis

Psychologically speaking, as humans, we are wired to think that we have the freedom to act and do based upon our own self judgment. For simplistic reasons, let’s assume that this “freedom” is analogous to free will which is a philosophical idea in which to act freely is to have multiple open futures and possibilities, or to be able to choose between many different choices. Determinism is the belief that every event (including action, choices, and decisions) is the inevitable result of a causal chain of events. In other words, a choice with an action (A) is the inevitable result of an earlier action of an earlier choice. This principle presents a problem for the concept of free will. The debate between the compatibility of these two ideologies has been a long standing one because there are many people who believe that determinism and free will go hand in hand, thus compatible, and then …show more content…
The argument goes as following. Premise One states “There’s nothing you can do to change the past” (Kane 23). Premise Two states ““There’s nothing you can do to change the laws of nature” (Kane 23). Premise Three which is a combination of Premise One and Two states “If determinism is true, then your current action is a necessary consequence of the past and natural laws” (Kane 24), therefore concluding that “If determinism is true, then there is nothing you can do to change your current action (Kane 24). There is an additional premise which connects the original argument for determinism to the concept of free will. Let’s call this premise, Premise 4. It states “In order for an action of yours to be free, you must have the ability to act otherwise” (Kane 24) which leads us to the second conclusion of The Consequence Argument which says “If determinism is true, then no one could have acted otherwise, therefore free will is impossible” (Kane