Van Inwagen Precis

In "Freedom of the Will," Peter van Inwagen argues that libertarianism is the best view in the free will debate because it involves the least mystery. He does this by discussing the basics of the free will debate, attempting to show how each view is mysterious, and concluding that libertarianism involves the least amount of mystery. Finally, he accepts the belief that we have libertarian free will for this reason. Van Inwagen sets up the basic options in the free will debate. He first defines determinism, free will, and furthers his argument by expressing how these terms interact with the ideas of compatibilism, and incompatibilism. He portrays free will through a diagram of a line with multiple paths connected to it. These linked paths representing possible futures that can change depend ing on the choices one makes. Van Inwagen then portrays a diagram that represents determinism-- this diagram shows a single continuous line with the multiple paths branching out other "paths" disconnected from the main line, which represents that only one future is physically possible but the linked paths are barely connected. It is conceivable that there are numerous possible futures they are barely linked and most likely not tangible. First, Van Inwagen believes Compatibilism is mysterious because one cannot believe in both the free will and the no choice principle. The No Choice Principle states that we did not have a choice about what occured in the past that caused an action or event today, and we have no control over current actions. If you are a Compatibilist, you must deny the No Choice Principle. Van Inwagen writes that Compatibilists make their principle seem like common sense because they attempt to sweep the mystery "under the carpet", although despite their efforts "the bulge shows". He writes that people are able to understand that there is something wrong with Compatibilists' theories, even if they are unable to express it. Van Inwagen does not deny Compatibilism completely, but says that it is mysterious, because in order to be free you must keep the no choice principle. Second, Van Inwagen writes that Incompatibilists, or Libertarians, must reject either free will or determinism. For example, if a human is trying to decide whether to do A or B, there is a possible future in which the organism behaves in a way appropriate to a decision to do either A or B without a preference. According to Van Inwagen, this example leads to mystery. He says, "the Indeterminism that seems to be required by free will seems also to destroy free will", which makes Incompatibilism mysterious. Van Inwagen uses the example of Jane to demonstrate a deeper level of Libertarianism called Event Causation Libertarianism. Jane is deciding whether to lie or not to lie. If an electric current in Jane's brain takes the left fork she will lie, but if it takes the right fork, she will not lie. The event that comes right before the fork in the road does not cause the "electric current" to go either way therefore Determinism is not true. There is