Critique
In the essay “Free Will and the Argued Existence Thereof,” the author attempts, firstly, to break down the hard-deterministic stance on free-will by proving that the position is both inconclusive and illogical and, secondly, to call for a rejection of hard-determinism based on the threat it poses to the very foundations of the ethical, judicial and religious systems in existence in the world today. In elucidating the former, the aim of the author, in essence, is not to prove the existence of free-will, but rather to show the inadequacy of the argument hard-determinists put forth; as for the latter, the author wishes to persuade readers—whether or not they stand convinced with the first part of the thesis—that the devastating societal implications of hard-determinism are reason enough for its outright dismissal.
The subject being of a philosophical nature, the author assumes some primary knowledge of philosophical terminology from the outset and does not feel the need to define terms the lay reader may not be aware of. Nonetheless, some definitions are presented in the essay in an indirect fashion—and these do serve the purpose of acquainting the reader with the subject- matter. Among these are free-will and hard-determinism. The author fails to define compatibilist and the reader is forced to derive the meaning from the ensuing discussion himself; moreover, determinism and hard-determinism are not clearly distinguished from each other.
In demonstrating the shaky ground hard-determinists stand on, the author not only shows how their stance is illogical but also counters the empirical evidence that they present by explaining how compatibilists interpret it. Thus, the author certainly refutes the argument that a hard-determinist may present. However, in proving his thesis, the author falls prone to a fallacious argument. When he shows that the hard-determinist stance is illogical, he appeals to common sense to validate his claim; this...
View Full Essay