QuestionsAre we free?Free will as self-causation?
Are we free?No free will

Free will as self-causation?

Friedrich Nietzsche 1844 · 1900God is dead: new values must be created.
See profile
What it claims

Free will in the strong sense does not exist. But determinism too is only a picture: there are only strong and weak wills.

Why

Being free in the strong sense would mean being the cause of oneself, which is contradictory: one would have to exist before existing.

In short

"Free will as self-causation?" is an argument by Friedrich Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, § 21) on the question "Are we free?" (answer: no free will). Its claim: Free will in the strong sense does not exist. But determinism too is only a picture: there are only strong and weak wills. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the conclusion does follow from its 2 premises. AskPhilosophy presents 2 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Beyond Good and Evil, § 21
Valid

Nietzsche attacks "free will" in the strong sense, which would make us solely responsible for everything we are.

P1Being free in the strong sense would mean being self-caused: made by nothing but oneself.
P2But self-causation is a contradiction: one would have to exist before existing in order to produce oneself.
Therefore free will in the strong sense does not exist. But determinism too is only a picture: there are only strong and weak wills.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Valid with no hidden premise: if freedom requires self-causation and that is impossible, freedom in that sense is impossible. The debate is about P1: does freedom really require self-causation?
Analogy. To pull yourself out of a swamp by your own hair, you would already have to be out of the swamp. Nietzsche compares absolute free will to Baron Münchhausen.

Objections

2

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Compatibilists (Hume and his heirs) attacks premise 1

Freedom does not require self-causation: being free means being able to act according to one's will, without external constraint. That sense survives the argument.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Nietzsche in the texts.
Kant attacks premise 2

Freedom does not belong to the chain of natural causes: it is known through the moral law, which assumes we can act otherwise. The argument only holds within the order of nature.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Nietzsche in the texts.