Gnome07

UPDATE: Upon further research, there are three theories in regards to this, which I will present briefly: An event-causal approach says that agency is when an agent does something because of some states or events in their mind, like beliefs, desires, intentions, etc. These states or events cause the action in a chain of events. For example, if I want to drink water and I believe there is water in the fridge, these mental states cause me to go to the fridge and drink water. This is a reductive approach because it explains agency by reducing it to the causal roles of mental states and events. An agent-causal approach says that agency is when an agent does something because they have the power to cause actions directly, without any intermediate states or events. The agent is a substance that can act on its own. For example, if I want to drink water, I can just decide to do it and cause myself to go to the fridge and drink water. This is a non-reductive approach because it does not explain agency by referring to anything else than the agent’s power. A volitionist approach says that agency is when an agent does something because of an act called a volition. A volition is an act of the will that is not caused by anything else and that causes other actions. For example, if I want to drink water, I can form a volition to do it and this volition causes me to go to the fridge and drink water. This is also a non-reductive approach because it does not explain agency by referring to anything else than the volition I will have to read a bit more, the third one seemed promising but I'm not sure yet if it's compatible with what Ayn Rand meant by volition.

Would you then argue that the Objectivist position qualifies as agent-causation after all? Ayn Rand does state that "All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act" . In that sense, is an "agent" just an entity that has volition? Indeed, that is the view called event-causal in regards to free will and ties in with the whole mechanistic view of an endless chain of events. Agent-causation does deal away with this view, though it is still a bit unclear to me if Objectivism agrees with the notion of agent as being the cause. Edit: I should probably leave a definition for what an agent is, to further clarify things: A being who has the capacity to act in a given environment, that can perform intentional actions and has a will. It is different from an object, which merely reacts but does not act.

Thanks for your quick response! Hmm...I think you are right. Agent-causation basically treats the agent as some sort of separate substance that causes an event, apart from anything else which is subject to classic chain of events put forward by determinism. While Objectivism would count as a form of metaphysical libertarianism(Incompatibilism that takes the side of free will), it wouldn't count as any of the established popular theories, as they all seem to be influenced by some sort of dualism or supernaturalism. My main issue is in finding a short term/label to refer specifically to the Objectivist position on the free will vs determinism debate, one that would more or less indicate to a reader that has no prior knowledge of objectivism what its fundamentals are. If you have any suggestions, I would be most grateful.

I was researching the general views on the subject of free will, when this made me think of Objectivism. It made me wonder whether the O'ist view would fit under this, as it embraces both free will and causality, while dismissing the need for physical indeterminism such as the Epicurean Swerve or Quantum Mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics) Thoughts?