Explain in some detail what it is that the philosopher(s) in question take the problem to be. Why is it a problem? 2. Clearly and accurately describe the philosopher(s)’s position/argument. This means more than restating the author’s thesis. What is the argument defending that thesis? 3. Defend your own position. What do you think they’ve got wrong? Provide an argument for your own position? NOTICE: I am not asking you to state your opinion, perspective, viewpoint, etc. I’m asking you to provide an argument defended with evidence. Flatly stating an opinion will not fully satisfy the requirements for the assignment. 4. Propose an objection to your position. How might a philosopher on the other side object to your position? Why might we think you’ve got it wrong? (Don’t pitch yourself softballs. Really go at it.) 5. Defend your position from the objection. How can your position survive the objection? In what way is the objection not a problem for your position? Pereboom – In “Why We Can Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It,” Pereboom explains an objection to his hard-incompatibilism. The critic argues that if we accept hard-incompatibilism and deny the existence of free will we will open ourselves up to some dangerous consequences. Pereboom offers a defense of his view, arguing that the consequences aren’t quite that bad. I want you to develop your own argument that explains why Pereboom’s view really does have dangerous implications. Explain what those implications are. Develop a possible objection to your position. Defend against it.
