Basic idea: Freedom is a matter of having an integrated self that governs how one acts Compatibility: As in the"third try"case: as long as the causes of the action and the choices are of the right sort(in this version, they come from the deep self) the action is free. However there is no suggestion here that avoidability is required for freedom Problem cases: early indoctrination, brainwashing, children? i Insofar as one's"deep self"is still determined, does this account allow us to be genuinely free? i In some cases one's"deep self" itself issues from"unwholesome"external causes, e.g., problematic upbringing education etc i Plausibly, children dont have the capacities for reflective desires that adults have, and in some sense lack a"deep self" Does this mean they aren, t capable of free action? Do you see a way to revise or develop this last attempt to avoid the problem cases? Ongoing questions: i Is there consensus on the cases that count as free actions? Is the addict who succumbs to taking the drug free or unfree? Is the kleptomaniac free or not? Is the person who steals because hungry free or unfree? What further information would we need about such cases to determine whether they are free or not? i Does one ity to reason or deliberate make a difference in determining whether one is free or not? If an action is the result of careful deliberation, does that suggest it is more free than an action that is the result of passion, phobia,or addiction? Why or why not? i What is at stake for us in calling an action free or unfree? If the action is necessitated by prior events, could it still be free in the sense we need? If not, why not?Basic idea: Freedom is a matter of having an integrated self that governs how one acts. Compatibility: As in the "third try" case: as long as the causes of the action and the choices are of the right sort (in this version, they come from the deep self) the action is free. However there is no suggestion here that avoidability is required for freedom. Problem cases: early indoctrination, brainwashing, children? ï Insofar as one's "deep self" is still determined, does this account allow us to be genuinely free? ï In some cases one's "deep self" itself issues from "unwholesome" external causes, e.g., problematic upbringing, education, etc. ï Plausibly, children don't have the capacities for reflective desires that adults have, and in some sense lack a "deep self". Does this mean they aren't capable of free action? Do you see a way to revise or develop this last attempt to avoid the problem cases? Ongoing questions: ï Is there consensus on the cases that count as free actions? Is the addict who succumbs to taking the drug free or unfree? Is the kleptomaniac free or not? Is the person who steals because hungry free or unfree? What further information would we need about such cases to determine whether they are free or not? ï Does one's capacity to reason or deliberate make a difference in determining whether one is free or not? If an action is the result of careful deliberation, does that suggest it is more free than an action that is the result of passion, phobia, or addiction? Why or why not? ï What is at stake for us in calling an action free or unfree? If the action is necessitated by prior events, could it still be free in the sense we need? If not, why not?