Freedom or control of how we act is often and very naturally understood as a kind of power-a power to determine for ourselves how we act. Is freedom conceived as such a power possible, and what kind of power must it be? The paper argues that power takes many forms, of which ordinary causation is only one; and that if freedom is indeed a kind of power, it cannot be ordinary causation. Scepticism about the reality of freedom as a power can take two forms. One, found in Hume, now often referred to as the Mind argument, assumes incompatibilism, and concludes from incompatibilism that freedom cannot exist, as indistinguishable from chance. But another scepticism, found in Hobbes, does not assume incompatibilism, but assumes rather that the only possible form of power in nature is ordinary causation, concluding that freedom cannot for this reason exist as a form of power. This scepticism is more profound-it is in fact presupposed by Hume’s scepticism-and far more interesting, just because freedom cannot plausibly be modelled as ordinary causation., Svoboda nebo kontrola toho, jak jednáme, je často a velmi přirozeně chápána jako druh moci - moc určovat si, jak jedeme. Je svoboda koncipována jako taková moc a jaká moc musí být? Příspěvek tvrdí, že moc má mnoho podob, z nichž obyčejná příčina je pouze jedna; a že pokud je svoboda skutečně určitým druhem moci, nemůže to být obyčejná příčina. Skepticismus o realitě svobody jako moci může mít dvě podoby. Jeden, nalezený v Hume, nyní často odkazoval se na jako myslargument, předpokládá neslučitelnost, a uzavře z neslučitelnosti že svoboda nemůže existovat, jak nerozeznatelný od šance. Ale další skepticismus, nalezený v Hobbes, nepředpokládá nekompatibilitu, ale předpokládá spíše to, že jedinou možnou formou moci v přírodě je obyčejná příčinná souvislost, závěr, že svoboda nemůže z tohoto důvodu existovat jako forma moci. Tento skepticismus je hlubší - ve skutečnosti je předpokládán Humeovým skepticismem - a mnohem zajímavějším, protože svoboda nemůže být věrohodně modelována jako obyčejná příčina., and Thomas Pink
Partial compatibilism says that there are basically two kinds of freedom of the will: some free volitions cannot be determined, while others can. My methodological choice is to examine what as- sumptions will appear necessary if we want to take seriously—and make understandable—our ordinary moral life. Sometimes, typically when we feel guilty about a choice of ours, we are sure enough that we, at the considered moment, actually could have taken a different option. At other times, however, typically when we are aware of some unquestionable moral reasons for a certain choice, we may perceive our choice as voluntary and free in spite of the fact that it is, in the given situation, unthinkable for us to choose otherwise than we actually do (there are situations when responsible agents, because of their strong moral reasons/motives, cannot choose differently). The assumption that experiences of the first kind are not always mistaken excludes our world being deterministic. Yet free will and determinism go together in some of those possible worlds which contain only the second kind of free volitions. Partial compatibilism represents a ‘third way’ between standard compatibilism and incompatibilism, a way to solve that old dilemma.