Suppose that scientists have figured out with absolute certainty that the world is deterministic. As you might imagine, this newly discovered fact about the world has had significant societal implications, mainly where crime and punishment are involved. Yesterday, the police arrested Stan the Strangler after he admitted that he planned and planned a plot to kill his innocent wife to get ahold of her life insurance money. While news of the killing initially led the local citizens to demand that Stan be treated harshly, the realization that Stan’s action was determined left the citizens unsure about what to do. To decide how to treat Stan, the citizens agreed that they must first figure out whether Stan acted of his own free will.
To deal with this case, the Ministry of Justice has asked you, an expert philosopher, to consider arguments in favor of and against the view that Stan acted of his own free will. You are to consider ONE philosopher (probably a compatibilist) who would make the case that Stan worked freely. You must also consider ONE OTHER philosopher (probably a skeptic, though any incompatibilist could do) who would argue that Stan did not act freely. Based on the arguments given by these two philosophers (we must have discussed them in depth in class), you must decide whether or not Stan acted of his own free will. Based on this decision, you can recommend what should be done with Stan. (200-300words)