Final answer:
The Ernie/Bernie example is a thought experiment used to argue that deep openness is necessary for free will and moral responsibility. Proponents of Libertarianism in the free will debate claim that moral responsibility requires the ability to have chosen otherwise, not predetermined by causal determinism. John Searle separated the free agency nature from causal determinism, focusing on conditions for responsible behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Ernie/Bernie example is a thought experiment used in philosophical discussions on free will. The premise of the example is to show that deep openness, or the ability to choose between different actions without restriction by causal determinism, is necessary for free will, particularly in the context of moral responsibility. In such a scenario, if an agent, at time T1, chooses option O1 over O2 and acts accordingly, the question arises whether the agent genuinely had the freedom to choose otherwise or if the choice was predetermined by a sequence of prior events.
Those who advocate for a Libertarian view on free will argue that for moral responsibility to be attributed, one must have had the ability to have chosen otherwise in a deeply open sense. If all actions are causally determined by previous events and physical laws, then, the libertarians argue, our sense of making decisions is an illusion. Instead, deep openness suggests that at any given moment, there are multiple possible futures, and an individual has the genuine capacity to bring about different outcomes based on their choices. Therefore, for an individual to have moral responsibility, their will must be free from deterministic constraints.
John Searle contributed to this debate by separating the question of the nature of free agency from whether our actions are causally determined. His work emphasizes the importance of understanding the conditions under which we hold individuals responsible for their actions, which implicates a certain conception of free will. Ultimately, the argument about deep openness in the context of the Ernie/Bernie example can be used to support the claim that for actions to be morally responsible, they must not be causally determined but must instead stem from a will that has the capacity to choose freely.