Scribd
Upload
10 views

Tutorial 1

The document summarizes responses to questions about philosophy and the paradox of freedom and determinism. It discusses how the question of choosing between a peach and cake is ambiguous depending on one's beliefs. Examples of determinism are given as the sun rising and a car climbing a hill. The conclusion discusses how Nagel believes we may not be responsible for actions under determinism or freedom.

Uploaded by

hafsazuha121
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views

Tutorial 1

The document summarizes responses to questions about philosophy and the paradox of freedom and determinism. It discusses how the question of choosing between a peach and cake is ambiguous depending on one's beliefs. Examples of determinism are given as the sun rising and a car climbing a hill. The conclusion discusses how Nagel believes we may not be responsible for actions under determinism or freedom.

Uploaded by

hafsazuha121
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Hafsa Faisal

A1885263

Tutorial 1
Part 2: Questions
1. Philosophy isn’t just a department at the University. It is an activity, and one we all engage in.
What do you think is involved in doing philosophy? Give some examples and be prepared to defend
your view.
I would categorise philosophy as the method of recognising, critiquing and questioning why, how and
what reality and existence are and in relation to each other and separately.

2. Nagel introduces the paradox of freedom and determinism with an everyday choice between
eating a peach or eating a piece of cake instead. (pp.47-51)
What does it mean to say that you could have chosen the peach instead of the chocolate cake? Why
is this question ambiguous?
The question is ambiguous as it is based on what theory the individual subscribes to, freedom or
determinism and what sub-type of theory they subscribe to as well (hard determinism, compatibilism,
incompatibilism etc). As this is a paradox and in philosophy there is no one true right answer, rather
different lens to look and understand arguments through, the everyday choice between choosing to eat
a peach or a piece of cake is complex. Through determinism, the individual would always choose the
piece of cake if they could go back to the exact mindset, brain chemistry and setting; whereas, based
on the theory of freewill, the individual could choose either the peach or the cake randomly.

3. According to Nagel, determinism is the idea that the laws of nature make certain events
inevitable. (pp.49-52)
Give examples of what Nagel has in mind. Are there reasons to doubt this thesis? How does it
undermine the idea that we have free will?
The examples Nagel has given are:
1. A car climbing the top of the hill if it has enough gas and power to do so, both which can be
determined prior to the car climbing the hill.
2. The sun rising. It is inevitable that the sun will rise tomorrow at a certain hour which can be
determined through studying patterns of the earth and sun’s location throughout previous times. It is
not possible for the sun to not rise or for the Earth to stop rotating or the sun to suddenly explode.
These are not possible as there is no event in the galaxy that would cause this.

Both examples that Nagel discusses in terms of laws of nature making events inevitable is in relation
to non-human objects, whereas I believe that only humans are able to have free will or determinism.
For example, the sun will most definitely rise, an individual may be in an accident and lose their eye
sight and not be able to see the sun due to a choice that they made. This cannot be translated to non-
human objects.

4. Nagel raises the possibility that “we’re not responsible for our actions whether determinism is
true or whether it’s false” (p.56).
How does Nagel reach this conclusion? Do you agree with him? Or do freedom and responsibility
require that our actions be determined (pp.57-8)?
Nagel reached this conclusion while discussing how something is of our doing through the lens of free
will and determinism. He states that unless the individual themselves “determine which theory to
choose, it is no more (their) responsibility than if it was determined by causes beyond (their) control.”
Therefore, how can an individual determine responsibility of their actions if nothing is determining it.
I do not personally agree with Nagel as our actions as individuals and humans depend on not only our
freedom and responsibility, but also our personal morality and ethics. This varies for each person but
nonetheless it is there in some capacity which is why I lean more towards free will that a deterministic
lens.

You might also like