Final answer:
The argument from freewill does gain support from causal arguments as long as those arguments take into account the subjective experience of choice and moral responsibility without resorting to randomness or strict determinism. The debate remains complex, with valid points on both sides.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the argument from freewill is further supported by causal arguments is a complex and nuanced issue within the field of philosophy. The Libertarian position, supporting the concept of freewill, suggests that individuals are free to choose among available alternatives and that this freedom underpins moral responsibility. John Searle's discussion on the freewill problem separates two aspects: the type of freedom necessary for moral responsibility, and whether our actions are causally determined by their antecedents. This distinction is crucial as it recognizes that even if actions could be consequent of prior events, the subjective experience of making a choice appears to offer a sense of autonomy.
Taylor's argument further contends that if determinism were true, our sense of deliberation and choice would be illusory. However, critics suggest that truly random decisions, free from causality, would undermine the notion of rational agency. Therefore, while some arguments support the concept of freewill by emphasizing human experience and moral responsibility, others imply that determinism is inescapable.
Ultimately, the debate between freewill and determinism continues in philosophy with arguments on both sides presenting significant challenges to the opposing views. The argument from freewill does gain some support from causal arguments when these causal arguments carefully consider the complexity of neurobiological structures and rational agency without slipping into absolute randomness or rigid determinism.