Hard Incompatiblism Analysis

Hard-Incompatiblism Hard determinism states that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism but, expanding on that Derk Pereboom also believes that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with indeterminism (Pereboom, p.85). For this is essay I will be objecting to Pereboom’s hard incompatiblism. These objections will come in the form objections made by other philosopher plus my two cents worth on hard incompatiblism as well. The main thing about hard incompatiblism is that we are simply not free in the right ways to be considered morally responsible for are actions; this means that it would be improper to have person be blame or praise worthy for their actions. One of the standard definitions of moral
Fischer’s objection is based on Pereboom’s four-case argument which involves four cases where Professor Plum is causally determined to commit the murder of Ms. White but in each case the only difference is the outside factors which lead to the murder (Fischer, p.98)(Pereboom, p.94). In the first two cases Plum is being controlled directly by outside forces which happen to be neuroscientist case one being that he is completely under their control and case two being where he is simply programmed to be egotistical. For the third case the only difference from the second case is that it was plums upbringing no neuroscientist that make him responsible and for case four it was just the way the universe was supposed to happen (Pereboom, p.94-96). Pereboom’s main point about his four-case argument is that he is not responsible every time because the circumstances aren’t different enough between the cases. For case one and two Fischer argues that Plum is morally responsible for his action but that it only seems like he is not because you could say that Plum does not deserve to be blamed for his actions (Fischer, p.94). Fischer says that Plum had guidance control over the murder of White but that because the events and circumstances in his life that lead to him having guidance control over he cannot be held blameworthy(Fischer,
McKenna argues that we should be come to the same conclusion then presented with Pereboom’s cases no matter the order that they are listed in but; this may not the actual case thought and that in fact the case could be open to different interpretation if placed in a different order (McKenna, p.100). Taking McKenna’s argument in to account this could mean that Pereboom is simply manipulating the case to make him look right. It is my opinion that because of the possibility that the case may be manipulated simply just by changing the order in which the case are read make the four-case argument at least at some level worthless .McKenna says that with the four-case argument that we should not single out the agential causes of Plums action but that he should share that focus with any hidden causes in his actions in order to determine his responsibility (McKenna,