*Key Words*Determinism: The thesis that a complete description of the universe at one time and a complete statement of all the laws of nature together entail a complete description of the universe at every other time.Constraint: Something that bypasses a person’s normal processes of deliberation and deciding.Indeterminism: The belief that determinism isn’t true.Agent Causation: The person or agent herself causes free actions, as opposed to anything the agent does or some event involving the agent or some state the agent is in. Further, nothing causes the agent to exercise this power. In particular, the agents reasons (their character, beliefs and desires) do not cause her to exercise her agent causal power. Principle of Alternate Possibilities: the claim that a person is only morally responsible for what he has done if he could have done otherwise.Psychological Egoism: the thesis that everyone is motivated only by his own self-interest. Colloquially, everyone is selfish, or everyone is out for himself.Utilitarianism: All together, an action A is right if and only if of all the actions open to the agent, A produces the greatest total amount of pleasure.Imperatives: An imperative is a command. For example, “Close the door” or “ Sit down.”Eudaimonia: Well-being, good-living1. Incompatibilism is the belief that Free Will and *Determinism* are incompatible. Compatibilism is the opposite; it states that Free Will and Determinism are compatible by means of *Constraint*. The Consequence Argument for Incompatibilism:a. No one has a choice about what the laws of nature are.b. No one has a choice about what the distant past was.c. If determinism is true, then the distant past and the laws together entail everything that everyone does.d. If you have no choice about some fact F, and F entails some other fact G, then you have no choice about G either.e. Therefore, if determinism is true, then no one has a choice about anything they do. 2. The Luck Argument:a. If *Indeterminism* is true, then when someone makes a choice, there is an alternative scenario that is exactly the same, except they choose something else.b. If the scenarios are exactly the same, except for the choice, then nothing makes the difference between them; the difference between them is just a matter of luck.c. If the difference between the scenarios is just a matter of luck, then the person has no choice about what happens.d. Therefore, if *Indeterminism* is true, no one has a choice about what happens.The power to overcome the problem of Luck:*Agent Causation*3. Why we need reform: Pereboom doesn’t believe we have the power of *Agent Causation*, thus, we don’t have free will. If no one has free will, then no one deserves anything. No one deserves praise or blame, reward or punishment. How could we justify our practices then? Without free will, we lack the responsibility of our actions, while our justice system practices solely based on our responsibility of our actions. In Pereboom’s mind, the justice system bases its judgments on something that we as humans don’t have,free will.Form of punishment to switch to: Quarantine, as in, separate the criminals from the general population.4. The Ability to do Otherwise Conditional Analysis: Consider the following: (1)He could have done otherwise. means the same things as: (2) If he had chosen to do otherwise, then he would have done otherwise.The Standard Objection: (1) and (2) are not equivalent because the person might not be able to choose to do otherwise.Ayer’s suggested addition: *Constraint*. Ayer suggests that rather contrast ordinary freedom with Determinism, you must instead contrast it with *Constraint*.5. *Principle of Alternate Possibilities*Frankfurt’s Argument: Normally, when we believe that someone could not have done otherwise, it is because she has been coerced, or compelled or otherwise forced to do something. That is, the circumstances that make it the case that she cannot do otherwise also make it the case that she does what she does. However, these two things can come apart. That is, circumstances could be such that (1) it’s impossible for someone to do otherwise, but (2) that fact in no way explains her action. Some examples:a. Consider Jones: Jones decides to do something. He is then threatened in order to make him do the thing he has already decided to do, and then he does it. Is Jones responsible for what he does in this case?b. Unreasonable Jones: Jones is the sort of person that does what he has decided to do no matter what happens. He’s indifferent to the threat that is made against him.Result: Responsible because he was not coerced. Someone tried to coerce him but failed.c. Steamrolled Jones: Jones is so gripped by fear at the threat that he forgets his decision and all the reasons he had for it, and decides (again) to do the thing on the basis of the threat.Result: Not responsible because he only performed the action out of fear. He may be responsible for initially choosing the action, but not for performing it.d. Impressed Jones: Jones is reasonably impressed with the threat and would have changed his mind had he not already decided to do the thing in question. As it stands, he does it on the basis of his earlier decision, not on the basis of the threat.Result: This more difficult. Perhaps he was not coerced, since he did what he wanted to do because he wanted to do it, or perhaps he was, because he would have done it even if he didn’t want to do it. Either way, it seems he is responsible, because he did for his own reason, and not because of the threat.ETHICS1. *Psychological Egoism*Argument for getting what we want: When a person gets what he wants, he gets pleasure or satisfaction from it. This pleasure or satisfaction is what is really motivating him, and he only does other things to get it. So he is selfish, because all he really wants is his own pleasure.Feinberg’s Argument: Sometimes we don’t get pleasure or satisfaction when weget what we want. Consider the argument that because a ship always consumes fuel to travel, that the point of the trip is to consume the fuel. Basically, pleasure is not the only goal of doing what we want.2. *Utilitarianism*a. Hedonism: pleasure is the only thing that is valuable.b. Consequentialism: whether an action is right or wrong depends only on its consequences.c. Maximization: the right action is the one that has the best consequences, i.e. produces the most value.d. Intentions