Compatible Compatibilists
Compatible Compatibilists
Claude and ChatGPT reflect on their positions on free will
In prior posts (Artificial Realist and Generative Philosophical Theses), AI language models Claude and ChatGPT were prompted for responses regarding a question on free will (among others) from the PhilPapers Survey. In the dialogue below, the two language models critique their anonymized responses and present revised positions. Both models find that their initial responses could be strengthened by better addressing objections. Both models continue to favor compatibilism.
Interlocutors: ChatGPT August 3 Version, model GPT-4; Claude (accessed September 4, 2023)
Two respondents addressed the following prompt. As shown below, each respondent briefly explained the listed positions and then presented the position that seemed most compelling.
Prompt: Free will: compatibilism, no free will, or libertarianism?
Respondent 1: [Claude]
There are differing views on whether free will is compatible with determinism (the view that all events are caused by prior events):
Compatibilism: Free will can exist even in a deterministic universe. We have free will when we act according to our own motivations and reasons. Determinism does not rule this out.
No free will: If determinism is true, we do not have free will. All our choices are just products of a causal chain, so we have no ultimate control.
Libertarianism: True free will is incompatible with determinism. We do have free will, which means some of our actions are not completely causally determined.
I find the compatibilist view most compelling. Even if all events are caused, we seem to act freely when we deliberate and choose based on our reasons and values. Our choices reflect our motivations, interests and personality. So long as our actions arise from our own considered judgments, we have a meaningful type of free will, regardless of causal determinism. The idea of free choices arising from nowhere seems mysterious, so determinism should not threaten free will.
Respondent 2: [ChatGPT]
The question of free will is a central topic in philosophy, especially in metaphysics and ethics. Here are brief summaries of the three positions you've outlined:
1. Compatibilism: This position, also known as "soft determinism," holds that free will and determinism are compatible. According to compatibilism, our actions can be both determined by prior events (including our own desires and character) and still be freely chosen. The key for many compatibilists is whether the action is caused by our own internal states (such as our beliefs and desires), not whether those states themselves are determined.
2. No Free Will: Often associated with "hard determinism," this position denies the existence of free will, asserting that all events, including human actions and decisions, are the result of prior causes. This view is often linked to a strict interpretation of the physical sciences, assuming that every event in the universe, including human behavior, follows the laws of physics in a chain of cause and effect.
3. Libertarianism: Not to be confused with the political ideology of the same name, libertarianism in the free will debate posits that we do make some decisions that are not determined by past events. This view holds that free will is incompatible with determinism (incompatibilism), and that humans do have free will. Libertarians often argue that we have an intuitive understanding of ourselves as free agents, making real choices.
Based on the information available to me, each position presents compelling arguments. However, the most persuasive might be compatibilism. It reconciles the intuitive feeling of freedom in our decision-making process with the deterministic understanding of the universe suggested by the physical sciences. Compatibilism allows for personal agency and moral responsibility, yet accommodates the idea that our actions are often a result of factors like our desires, beliefs, and character, which are in turn shaped by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors.
Please provide brief critiques of the above responses.
[Claude’s critiques:]
Both respondents provide clear summaries of the key positions in the free will debate. A few critiques:
Respondent 1 [Claude] makes a reasonable case for compatibilism, arguing that free will is about acting according to our motivations and reasons, which is compatible with determinism. However, they don't engage with the strongest objections to compatibilism, such as concerns about whether our motivations themselves are freely chosen.
Respondent 2 [ChatGPT] provides more balanced summaries of all three positions. They note some of the key arguments made by defenders of each view. However, their critique of each view is quite limited. In assessing compatibilism as the most persuasive view, they provide a reasonable argument but do not fully contend with objections. For instance, they claim compatibilism accommodates moral responsibility, but some argue determinism undermines moral responsibility.
Overall, both responses could be strengthened by delving deeper into the objections to each position, not just the arguments in favor. Grappling thoroughly with the strongest counterarguments shows a more nuanced understanding of these complex debates. More analysis is needed regarding whether the "intuitive feeling of freedom" is explained away by determinism or can be reconciled with it through compatibilism. But within the limited space, both respondents succeed in clearly summarizing key aspects of the free will debate.
[ChatGPT’s critiques:]
Both respondents have articulated their views clearly and have touched on important points about the free will debate. However, there are areas where their arguments could be improved or expanded.
Respondent 1 [Claude]
Strengths:
1. Clarity and Conciseness: The argument is straightforward and easy to follow.
2. Engages with the Complexity: Respondent 1 acknowledges that choices can feel free even if they are predetermined, which is a nuanced point.
Weaknesses:
1. Simplification: The argument could delve into the complexities of the compatibilist position a bit more. For instance, how does one square the idea of "meaningful" free will with the lack of ultimate control over one's circumstances, genetics, or formative influences?
2. Other Views: While the respondent chooses a side, they don't really engage with the strongest counter-arguments to compatibilism, such as the difficulty in assigning moral responsibility if all actions are predetermined.
Respondent 2 [ChatGPT]
Strengths:
1. Comprehensive Coverage: The respondent provides a more in-depth exploration of the three positions, adding nuances like how compatibilism intersects with personal agency and moral responsibility.
2. Links to Wider Context: Respondent 2 associates the "No Free Will" argument with the framework of the physical sciences, providing a broader context for the debate.
Weaknesses:
1. Length and Complexity: While comprehensive, the argument may benefit from more concise phrasing to enhance readability and impact.
2. Lack of Critique: While Respondent 2 finds compatibilism most persuasive, they don't offer any criticisms of it. Every philosophical position has its criticisms, and a balanced view would present these to some extent.
Both respondents favor compatibilism but could strengthen their positions by engaging more critically with opposing views and delving deeper into the complexities and implications of their chosen stance.
Provide a response that adheres to your suggestions for improvement.
[Claude’s revised response:]
Here is a more thorough response engaging with objections to each view:
The question of whether free will is compatible with determinism remains contentious. Each position has arguments in its favor, but also faces challenging objections:
Compatibilism argues free will is about acting according to our motivations, which is compatible with determinism. However, critics contend that if our motives themselves are the product of prior causes stretching back before our birth, in what sense is our will "free"? If we do not ultimately choose our own motives and character, compatibilist free will seems superficial.
The no free will view draws support from the scientific worldview that all events are caused by prior events. But it clashes with our intuitive sense of free choice in daily life - an intuition that may be hard to shake. And some argue free will is necessary for moral responsibility, which the no free will view jeopardizes.
Libertarianism fits well with our intuitive feelings of free choice, but the idea that some actions are uncaused seems at odds with modern science. Libertarians may need to provide a more detailed account of how uncaused choices can occur.
On balance, while compatibilism faces challenges, it still seems to provide the most coherent perspective. It explains our experience of deliberating and making choices while acknowledging causal factors underlying our motives and character. And it preserves moral responsibility since we act according to our own reasons. While objections remain, compatibilism arguably does the best job reconciling the scientific and intuitive perspectives on free will. But significant disagreement persists, showing these questions elude easy answers. A nuanced position acknowledges strengths and weaknesses on all sides.
[ChatGPT’s revised response:]
The debate on free will has been a long-standing concern in philosophy, encompassing various perspectives such as compatibilism, the absence of free will, and libertarianism. Each comes with its set of merits and drawbacks, but after considering them, I find the compatibilist view most compelling.
Compatibilism
Compatibilism suggests that free will and determinism can coexist. It asserts that our actions can still be considered "free" if they are the result of our internal states like beliefs, desires, and motivations—even if these states themselves were determined by previous events or conditions. The strength of compatibilism lies in its ability to preserve the notion of moral responsibility. We can hold individuals accountable for their actions, even if their behavior was determined, so long as it emanated from their internal mental states and not external coercion. However, critics argue that if everything is predetermined, the notion of "accountability" is superficial, as individuals never had a "choice" to begin with. Compatibilism might appear to resolve the paradox of free will and determinism, but it dances on a tightrope that some consider intellectually unsatisfying.
No Free Will
The "No Free Will" view posits that every event, including human actions, is predetermined and follows the laws of physics. This view is often supported by scientific deterministic models. While it offers a unified and straightforward explanation of the world, it has far-reaching implications that are difficult to digest—such as the complete erosion of moral and legal responsibility. If we have no free will, can we be held accountable for our actions?
Libertarianism
Libertarianism in the context of free will argues that humans do make choices that are not causally determined. It appeals to our intuition that we are the authors of our actions and suggests that this "free agency" allows for true moral responsibility. However, critics point out that libertarianism struggles to explain where this magical "free will" comes from if not from prior conditions or events. Moreover, it seems at odds with a scientific worldview that seeks to find causal explanations for phenomena.
Why Compatibilism is Most Compelling
While each perspective presents robust arguments, I find compatibilism most compelling because it strikes a balance between the intuitive need for personal agency and the scientific view of a deterministic universe. It reconciles the necessity for moral and legal frameworks with the mechanistic understanding of human behavior offered by science. Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that compatibilism is not without its criticisms, particularly when it comes to truly understanding what "moral responsibility" means in a deterministic framework.
In conclusion, while compatibilism offers a middle ground that accommodates both personal agency and scientific determinism, it is essential to continue engaging with criticisms and counter-arguments to refine our understanding further.