Question

To my understanding, physical causal Determinism means that if E is a physical event, then there is a physical event C such that C causes E. Fatalism means that if some event C happens, then any event E caused by C must always have happened on account of C. That is, Determinsm says that what happens has a cause, and Fatalism says that causes and effects have to have happened. The former is saying that a cause is enough for an effect, while the latter say that all instances of causation have always been decided.

I understand that this is a bit simplistic, and would require a broad survey of at least Physics, Metaphysics, and Math to really fully motivate. Either way, doesn’t debate about free will have more to do with Fatalism than Determinism?

Answer 1

The discussion of free will in philosophy considers whether human actions are determined by prior causes (determinism), whether these causes make actions inevitable (fatalism), and whether free will can coexist with determinism (compatibilism). While fatalism is a relevant aspect of the free will debate, the broader discussion also includes determinism's implications on moral responsibility and human agency.

Step-by-step explanation:

The discussion of free will, fatalism, determinism, compatibilism, and incompatibilism falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. Causal determinism is the philosophical concept that posits every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the necessary and inevitable result of antecedent states of affairs. Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do, often implying that all events are predetermined and inevitable. The debate about free will tends to focus on whether our actions are determined by prior causes, which in a deterministic framework they are, and whether such determinism is compatible with the notion of free will.

According to the notion of hard determinism, if every event has a cause and there is no room for free will or moral responsibility. In contrast, soft determinism, or compatibilism, argues that free will can still exist even if determinism is true, provided that our actions align with our desires and there are no external constraints. The discussions surrounding these concepts raise questions about moral responsibility and the nature of human freedom, contrasting them with an indeterministic view which allows for uncaused actions.

Nonetheless, the debate about free will extends beyond just a discussion of fatalism. It also involves examining how these predetermined events or states might align with our desires and choices, whether we have actual control over our actions in the face of determinism, the role of moral responsibility, and the implications of potential future events that result from present causes. Therefore, while fatalism is relevant to the debate on free will, it does not encompass the entire discussion, which also concerns various forms of determinism and their compatibility with the notion of free will.