Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Anna Stone defends compatibilism. "Free will is compatible with determinism," Stone argues. "Freedom means acting according to one's desires without external compulsion. Determined desires are still one's own."
Text 2: Philosopher Dr. Paul Black challenges compatibilist conditions. "If desires themselves are determined, acting on them isn't genuinely free," Black contends. "Compatibilism redefines freedom rather than preserving it. The original worry about determinism remains unaddressed."
What does Black argue compatibilism fails to address?
Whether desires exist
Whether the determination of desires themselves threatens freedom
Whether external compulsion ever occurs
Whether determinism is scientifically supported
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Stone locates freedom in acting on desires. Black asks about the desires' origin—if determined, the problem just moves back. Desire determination isn't addressed by Stone's analysis.
- Evidence: Black: "If desires themselves are determined, acting on them isn't genuinely free."
- Reasoning: Stone's conditions don't address desire formation.
- Conclusion: Compatibilism sidesteps rather than solves the determination worry.
Choice A is incorrect because both accept desires exist. Choice C is incorrect because Stone's conditions address external compulsion. Choice D is incorrect because determinism's truth isn't the issue.