There are 3 basic views that can be taken on the view of determinism, (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will.In this paper I am going to be defending the view compatibilism, specifically W. T. Stace’s view of compatibilism.
Compatibilism is the idea that determinism is true, every event in the world is caused, and that free will still exists. Stace defends this view by saying the problem is the definition of free will. The current definition of what free will is a completely and wholly uncaused action. However this obviously would be completely …show more content…

This puts question to being able to know for sure before it happens that you will do some action. Nowhere in Stace’s definition of free will does it say, in order to have free will you need to be able to have done otherwise for every free action. But even still one logical objection to this could be the fatalist view, that it is impossible to exactly what will happen in the future because it has not yet occurred so there is nothing in fact to know about it.
Another objection is deals with the act of compulsion. The argument is that, sometimes humans have compulsions that are seemingly completely out of there control. There are obviously people in the world that have compulsions, take for instance people that have tourettes syndrome or people with obsessive compulsive disorder. These compulsive actions seem to be unconscious and out of a person’s ability to stop. Just because the action is unconscious or out of a persons ability to stop does not mean that the cause of that action was not an immediate mental