What Is Stace s Position On The Problem Of Free Will And...

In this paper I will defend W.T. Stace’s position of compatibilism in respect to the problem of free will, as presented in Religion and the Modern Mind. I will explain Stace’s position on how free will and casual determinism are compatible. I will consider the following two objections against Stace’s position of free will: compatibilism is too weak a notion of free will that it conflicts with determinism, and there is no real difference between free and constrained action. Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents. In the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. W.T Stace, wanted to prove that the hard determinist definition of â€Å"free† was incorrect. He posed that free does not mean random, but that our acts are casually determined in a particular fashion. There must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad. First, Stace presents is that if there is no free will then there is no morality. If a person is not free to choose what they will do then there is not a point in instructing them on what is right and what is wrong. So, if a person does not have control of their actions, how are they to be held morally accountable? Second, Stace presents that the dispute of free will is merely a semantic