Philosophy Research Paper

Research Paper - Philosophy.docx

Download DOCX • 18KB

Gabriel Rodriguez

PHIL 1301

Burleson

10 October 2021

Libertarianism

William James argued that the experiences we have and the choices we make are evidence of free will or the philosophical idea of Libertarianism. Within Bend Studios’ 2019 release ‘Days Gone,’ the character Mark Copeland consistently advocates for freedom of the people he’s responsible for with minimal rules as to how one should govern themselves. Philosophically, this could be explained as the lack of a determinist structure, as one can still violate these rules should they choose to, which does happen within the events of the game. As you progress through, your actions within the narrative can affect the world around you and drastically change the way you finish the story. With such knowledge present, it’s clear that the choices you can make or not make are evidence that the game is set in a philosophically libertarian environment.

Days Gone starts out with you playing as Deacon Saint John, a member of the Mongrel Motorcycle Club from Farewell, Oregon. You’re immediately thrown into the post-apocalyptic setting in a cut scene that gives some exposition to the story where Deacon and his best friend Bruiser are trying to escape the town of Farewell after it’s been overrun by infected people (essentially zombies) known as ‘Freakers’. Deacon, atop a building where a NERO (National Emergency Response Organization) helicopter is getting ready to leave puts his injured wife aboard the helicopter and reluctantly says his goodbyes as there was not enough room on the helicopter for he and Bruiser to get on. Fast forward some time and you are introduced to the now less populated wilderness of Farewell on the hunt for a bounty on a member of the nearby Peaceful Lake Camp, referred to in-game as Copeland’s Camp as the leader of the camp would be Mark Copeland who is met after successfully tracking and killing the bounty.

Upon returning to the bike which Deacon left, covered and camouflaged on the side of the road, he finds it scrapped and parted out, having left it there because the bounty he was searching for had shot out the fuel pump. This leads him to go to Copeland’s camp, which he suspects had some hand in scrapping his bike. Upon meeting with Mark Copeland, Copeland asks if he’s seen Leon, the bounty that Deacon and Bruiser were hunting for another camp, Hot Springs Camp which is run by Ada Tucker. During Deacon and Copeland’s conversation, Copeland snags a hat that belonged to Leon from Deacon’s back pocket, a proof of kill for the bounty, and Copeland realizes that Deacon had killed Leon. After realizing what Deacon has done, Copeland gives Deacon an option: Either bring a stash of drugs and medicine that Leon stole from Hot Springs camp to him or be forced to do supply runs to have the privilege of conducting business with the camp. Upon bringing the proof of bounty to Ada Tucker at Hot Springs Camp she asks for the medicine and drugs to be returned, so you’re met with a choice: Either take the stash to Ada Tucker for camp credits and renown with the camp or do the same for Mark Copeland. Both choices net you different benefits as the camps sell different items, Hot Springs being for weapons, Copeland’s Camp being for better motorcycle parts to replace the one’s stolen from your bike.

This is where the main argument for the philosophical libertarianism as well as political libertarianism is introduced. It gives you a choice, both of which are at no true detriment to you as progression in the game can max out renown for both camps and you’re left without a negative consequence for either action. On one hand, you can give the medication to the leader who rants about the government and disdain for overreach and control. On the other, you can give it to the authoritarian leader who enslaves people for the better of all the people at her camp and pays you for bringing her more people. The choice is yours. You are free to do whichever you’d like OR choose not to progress the story further and do neither.

Within various parts of the game past this choice there are plenty of ways to play, whether you choose stealthily moving through missions and avoiding enemies or going guns blazing and taking out every enemy in sight. Another option is to entirely avoid enemies and instead just drive around the open world of the game, taking in the sights, collecting in-game collectibles, etc. There is such a wide variety of choice. This alludes to the argument of whether or not you have free will, the determinist vs libertarian arguments, and the middle ground of compatibilism.

In section ‘1.1 Control’ of ‘Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will,’ it states, “The first objection to noncausal theories of free will concerns control. Performing an action—even acting unfreely—is often thought to involve active control over what one does, and acting freely is thought to involve an especially valuable variety of such control. An account of free will ought to say what this latter variety of control is or in what its exercise consists. A common objection is that noncausal accounts fail to do that.

Accounts of active control often appeal to causation. Exercising such control when one acts, it is said, consists in causing some event (the action, or an event internal to that action). It is often further held that causation by an agent consists entirely in causation by mental events or states of certain kinds, such as the agent’s desiring, believing, or intending something in particular. Of course, noncausal theories reject any such view, but what alternative have they to offer us?”

Essentially what I’ve interpreted this as is that every noncausal of free will must be explained by some act of causation. There must be a root cause of an act in order for it to be determined as free will or a lack thereof. This is especially driven when it says “causation by an agent consists entirely in causation by mental events…” as it would imply that in order for one to be in control of their choices, the cause of it must be from or of their own mind, desires, or beliefs. ("Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta)

As it relates to the game Days Gone, this would essentially mean that the will of the character is up to you, the player which would lead to the conclusion of libertarianism. However, there are points within the game that you may get to where the storyline would have other non-player characters or NPCs for short would have you restricted to a certain area, the choice of whether or not to progress and escape said areas or progress so you may leave those areas is of course up to you, which reinforces the idea of compatibilism as you had no choice in some part of it, but can choose how you would like to move forward. There are of course other ways that you could factor into whether or not there are going to be determined events or if there is true free will.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information, when referring to real possibilities and indeterminism says, “There are many different kinds of possibility, among which real possibility stands out in virtue of its peculiar interrelation with the notion of time. Next to epistemic possibility, we commonly distinguish, amongst others, between logical, metaphysical, and physical possibility. In contrast to real possibility, those latter kinds of possibilities, which are standardly discussed in the literature, are entirely atemporal notions. Epistemic possibilities as well as logical, metaphysical, and physical possibilities are generally conceived of as representing modal alternatives to actuality, i.e., ways our world could be in a certain respect but actually is not.” In layman’s terms, there are many types of outcomes as it pertains to the possibility of free will and how we come to an event. The possibilities that we end up somewhere can be entirely random or predestined based upon choices we’ve made in the past. This could be interpreted within the events of Days Gone with the random events, such as attacks by the wildlife or quick-time events during large freaker attacks, where you must quickly and repeatedly press keys or buttons to escape the grasp of the enemies.

Troy Fassbender says, “Unlike compatibilist philosophers who prefer to speak in terms of free action, Kane holds freedom of the will to be of primary import. This is so because he takes the traditional idea of the will very seriously as opposed to other modern philosophers who - 10 - use the term free will as a nod to philosophical tradition when they are actually referring to free action. For Kane, free will is “the power of agents to be the ultimate creators (or originators) and sustainers of their own ends or purposes” whereas free action is merely “to be unhindered in the pursuit of your purposes” (4) regardless of the ultimate origin of those purposes.” This idea, stated in his theses paper would push the hardest for the Libertarianism philosophy, as within the game you have unlimited option as to how you want to play (game development aspects aside). The argument of what power you have being that you are the person to control how the game goes. In the end, there is nothing stopping you from not progressing past the very beginning, save for yourself. (Fassbender, Troy Dwayne. "Grad School Theses" - LSU Digital Commons)