A New Lens: Free Will and Determinism in Strawson's Analysis Anonymous College

The introduction of Strawson’s seemingly novel categories—namely the “optimists” and “pessimists”—is indicative of the way in which he presents his argument. Rather than argue on the battleground prior, Strawson disregards the “over-intellectualized” nature of previous arguments in favor of a new lens, one that focuses on the natural tendencies within human relationships.

Strawson does this by first defining the rival groups of philosophers mentioned above. The optimists are those who “hold that these concepts and practices [punishing and blaming] in no way lost...if the thesis of determinism is true” (Strawson, p. 1). In other words, optimists are compatibilists who advocate for the applicability of free will and moral responsibility even if determinism is true. On the contrary, pessimists consider these “concepts of moral obligation and responsibility” to “have no application” if determinism is true (Strawson, p. 2). Thus, the pessimists are incompatibilists that deny the existence of free will and moral responsibility in the context of determinism.

Subsequently, Strawson proceeds to explain the primary point of contention between the two groups: the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism. He does this by...