8/12/2019 75554571

1/15

75554571 Kane's LibertarianFree WIll

bySaad Nain

FILE

TIME SUBMITTED 20-JAN-2014 01:59PM

SUBMISSION ID 29569786

WORD COUNT 3040

CHARACTER COUNT 14803

75554571_KANE_S_LIBERTARIAN_FREE_WILL.DOCX (25.3K)

8/12/2019 75554571

2/15

8/12/2019 75554571

3/15

8/12/2019 75554571

4/15

8/12/2019 75554571

5/15

8/12/2019 75554571

6/15

8/12/2019 75554571

7/15

8/12/2019 75554571

8/15

8/12/2019 75554571

9/15

8/12/2019 75554571

10/15

8/12/2019 75554571

11/15

FINAL GRADE

67/100

75554571 Kane's Libertarian Free WIll

GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

Philosophy Assessed Essay Feedback Sheet

Marker: HB

Marks deducted for inadequate referencing and/or

bibliography: 0

Marks deducted for lateness:

Provisional mark: 67

(marks are provisional until approved by the JuneExam Board)

Markers Overall View Comments:

1. Strengths

This is a clearly written essay with a clear overall

argumentative structure and a good understanding of

Kane's position; and you advance your own

responses to objections to it.

2. Weaknesses

-- You could have thought more about, and devoted

more space to, your own responses to the

objections. The first (on the empirical issue) was

pretty cursory; the second wasn't explained terribly

well and didn't really seem to address the objection,

and the third involved a little too much direct appeal to

Kane.

-- Argumentative structure could have been better in

the case of the luck objection.

3. To move to the next degree class you should

improve:

-- Devote more thought and space to your own

responses -- really think them through and give

yourself enough space to explain them properly andmake them as convincing as you can.

For more information on Philosophys marking

system and assessment criteria, see Chapter 8 of

8/12/2019 75554571

12/15

QM

QM

the Philosophy Study Guide. You are welcome to

discuss your feedback with your tutor, course

convenor or academic advisor.

PAGE 1

Comment 1Not clear! Does this mean 'defended against objections' or do you mean that compatibilism can be

defended against it??

Comment 2OK, good intro, but you could also say briefly how your defence is going to go.

Grammar

grammar!

Comment 3you already said this!

PAGE 2

Grammargrammar!

PAGE 3

Comment 4good -- you've explained all this pretty well.

Comment 5should there be an 'if' here?

Comment 6again, well explained

PAGE 4

Comment 7Well, I guess it depends what you mean by 'reasonably'! If you mean 'has evidence for', then I

disagree. If you just mean 'it's not a completely incoherent suggestion -- the actual world *could* be

arranged in that way', then yes, reasonable ...

Comment 8Surely has UR by virtue of having AP?

PAGE 5

8/12/2019 75554571

13/15

Comment 9?? Kane doesn't say this, does he? (Well, it *might* be involved, and it would therefore lessen

control (as in the husband smashing the table example), but this isn't an essential part of K's story.

Comment 10Seems odd to describe this as a case where your 'will is set on what to do'. After all, you're making

a decision between competing options, and before you make the decision it looks as though yourwill is (at least in *some* sense) *not* set. Otherwise you wouldn't have to deliberate about where to

go.

PAGE 6

Comment 11is not? may not be?

Comment 12More argument needed here!! It's reasonable to assume something unless it's conclusively proved

false?? So it's reasonable to assume that my experiences are all caused by an evil demon, that

aliens live among us, that human life will be eradicated by nuclear war within the next 10 years, ...?

Comment 13I don't see how this engages with the objection though. Maybe it would be nice if UR were satisfied.

That's not an empirical reason to think that it *is*.

Comment 14Are we moving on to the next objection here? Signposting needed!

Comment 15are these scare quotes? not needed.

Comment 16I'm not getting this! The problem here is that at some point, there is a first SFA. That you are in that

SFA position is (by definition) not something you are responsible for (since there's no prior SFA it

traces back to). So how can you be 'ultimately' respons ible for what you then decide? (Your

response seems to be that later SFAs are not determined by preceding ones. But then, again, notthe decision *itself* -- *what* you decide -- but the fact that you are *in* that position (e.g. that there is

a genuine conflict of will here) is not something that you ever had any control over. That's the

problem!

PAGE 7

Comment 17I think Kane would deny this (on at least one way of understanding this anyway). Again, *that you

are now in an SFA situation* will, for K, be determined by the decision you made in some previous

SFA. (E.g. the fact that you are now at least considering saving the victim rather than going to themeeting is a result of previous decisions that have made you into the kind of person who cares

about the welfare of random strangers).

Comment 18

8/12/2019 75554571

14/15

8/12/2019 75554571

15/15

RUBRIC: PHILOSOPHY_UG

CRITERIA

FIRST 80% +

FIRST 75-79%

FIRST 70-74%

2:1 60-69%

2:2 50-59%

THIRD 40-49%

FAIL 33-39%

FAIL 25-32%

FAIL 10-24%

FAIL 0-9%

As for 75-79% plus: Successfully articulates and convincingly defends an original

philosophical thesis.

As for 70-74% plus: Displays clear evidence of independent reading and thinking.

Demonstrates excellent powers of critical analysis.

Most relevant issues are identified. Displays evidence of wide reading of relevant primary

sources. Demonstrates a good grasp of the relevant concepts and philosophical

pos itions. Demonstrates the ability to argue logically and persuasively, and to organise

the answer very effectively. Demonstrates excellent analytical ability and very good

powers of critical thought. Superior understanding is shown (for example, by good use

of original examples or analogies to illustrate points and justify arguments).

Most relevant issues are identified. Displays evidence of reading of relevant primary

sources. Demonstrates a good grasp of the relevant concepts and philosophicalpositions. Demonstrates the ability to argue logically and to organise the answer

effectively. Demonstrates good powers of critical thought (by, for example, using original

examples or analogies to illus trate points and justify arguments).

Many of the relevant issues identified. Shows some ability to argue logically and to

organise the answer. Demonstrates some knowledge of the material provided in basic

textbooks/lecture notes. Little evidence of critical thought or wider reading in the subject.

Some of the relevant issues identified. Shows only a partial grasp of the relevant

concepts and/or philosophical positions. Fails to develop or illustrate points or to direct

them adequately to the question.

Identification of relevant issues insufficiently clear. Fails to show a grasp of relevant

concepts and/or philosophical positions. Displays some understanding of the general

subject, nut also major gaps in knowledge and/or understanding.

Answer minimal or largely irrelevant. Displays some basic knowledge and understanding

of the subject.

Answer minimal or largely irrelevant, Displays only the most basic knowledge of the

general subject.

Answer irrelevant.