EigoPro 1級 読解 — The Compatibilist Wager

Few philosophical disputes prove as stubbornly intractable as the quarrel between free will and determinism. If every event, the firing of a neuron no less than the collapse of an empire, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent causes, then our deliberations would seem to be mere theatre, their outcomes settled before the curtain rises. The hard determinist embraces this conclusion unflinchingly: since we could not have acted otherwise, blame and praise alike are incoherent, and the apparatus of moral responsibility ought to be dismantled as a relic of pre-scientific superstition. Punishment, on this view, may at most be justified as a deterrent, never as a deserved retribution. Compatibilists, however, regard this inference as a confusion masquerading as rigour. The error, they contend, lies in conflating freedom with the metaphysical capacity to violate the causal order. To be free, on their reading, is not to be uncaused but to be the proximate author of one's actions, acting from desires and reasons that are genuinely one's own rather than under coercion or compulsion. A man who pays his taxes from conviction is free; one who surrenders his wallet at gunpoint is not, though both events are equally caused. The relevant distinction is therefore not between the caused and the uncaused, but between the constrained and the unconstrained, between actions that flow from an agent's own evaluative commitments and those imposed against them. This redefinition strikes critics as sleight of hand, a verbal manoeuvre that purchases responsibility by quietly lowering its price. If my desires themselves were instilled by forces I never chose, in what sense are they mine, and how can I be answerable for enacting them? Compatibilists answer that the demand for an uncaused self is incoherent: a will that sprang from nothing would be arbitrary, not free, and could ground no responsibility whatever. Freedom worth wanting must be the freedom of an embedded agent shaped by history and circumstance, not a sovereign abstraction floating above the causal world. Whether this manoeuvre genuinely rescues moral life or merely renames its predicament in more palatable terms remains the unresolved crux of the dispute.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録 または ログイン が必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

What is the central claim the passage attributes to compatibilists?

  • Determinism is false because human deliberation can override antecedent causes.
  • The dispute over free will is ultimately a meaningless pseudo-problem with no content.
  • Moral responsibility must be abandoned once determinism is accepted as true.
  • Freedom should be understood as acting without coercion rather than as escaping causation altogether.
Phrase

a confusion masquerading as rigour

1級読解主旨把握論旨
⚡ひとことで

両立論は自由を因果からの逃避ではなく強制の不在として再定義する。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Freedom should be understood as acting without coercion rather than as escaping causation altogether.」

正解

両立論者の核心は、自由を「因果律を破る形而上学的能力」と取り違える点に誤りがあるとする立場である。本文は "To be free... is not to be uncaused but to be the proximate author of one's actions" と述べ、自由とは強制や強迫の下でないことだと再定義する。したがって自由は無因果性ではなく非拘束性に存する。

  • 「Determinism is false because human deliberation can override antecedent causes.」

    = 熟慮が先行原因を覆せるから決定論は偽だとする主張 ━ 本文の両立論は決定論を否定せず、むしろ受け入れた上で自由を再定義しており、原因の超越は不要だとする。。

  • 「Moral responsibility must be abandoned once determinism is accepted as true.」

    = 決定論を認めれば道徳的責任は捨てるべきだという主張 ━ これは硬い決定論者 (hard determinist) の見解であり、両立論者はこれを "a confusion" として退ける立場である。。

  • 「The dispute over free will is ultimately a meaningless pseudo-problem with no content.」

    = 自由意志論争は無意味な疑似問題だとする主張 ━ 本文は論争を "the crux of the dispute" として実質的争点とみなしており、無内容とは述べていない。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
masquerade as NNに見せかける・偽装するHis cynicism masqueraded as wisdom.
conflate A with BAとBを混同するCritics conflate freedom with sheer randomness.
regard X as YXをYとみなすShe regards the objection as decisive.
lie in NNに存する・原因があるThe error lies in a hidden assumption.
the crux of NNの核心・要点This is the crux of the whole debate.
❝例文

  • The compatibilist redefines freedom in terms of the absence of coercion.

    両立論者は自由を強制の不在の観点から再定義する。

  • A theory may masquerade as rigour while resting on a confusion.

    理論は混同に依拠しながら厳密さを装うことがある。

  • To conflate two notions is to treat distinct things as if they were one.

    二つの概念を混同するとは、別個のものを一つのように扱うことだ。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨設問では、本文が「誰の主張か」を区別することが鍵。hard determinist と compatibilist の対立軸を取り違えると誤答に誘導される。

問 2

According to the passage, how does the hard determinist respond to the determinist conclusion?

  • They accept it without hesitation and conclude that the system of moral responsibility should be dismantled.
  • They argue that praise and blame remain coherent despite the causal order.
  • They reinterpret freedom so that responsibility can be preserved intact.
  • They reject it by insisting that some events escape antecedent causation.
Phrase

embraces this conclusion unflinchingly

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

硬い決定論者は結論をためらわず受け入れ、責任の体系を解体すべきだとする。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「They accept it without hesitation and conclude that the system of moral responsibility should be dismantled.」

正解

本文は "The hard determinist embraces this conclusion unflinchingly" と明言する。我々は他のように行為し得なかった以上、賞罰は不整合であり "the apparatus of moral responsibility ought to be dismantled" と続く。よって彼らは結論を躊躇なく受容し、責任の装置を解体すべきだとする。

  • 「They reject it by insisting that some events escape antecedent causation.」

    = 一部の出来事は先行原因を逃れるとして結論を拒む ━ 硬い決定論者は逆に全ての出来事を原因の必然的帰結とみなしており、因果の超越を主張しない。。

  • 「They reinterpret freedom so that responsibility can be preserved intact.」

    = 責任を温存できるよう自由を再解釈する ━ これは両立論者の戦略であり、硬い決定論者ではない。役割の取り違え。。

  • 「They argue that praise and blame remain entirely coherent in spite of the underlying causal order.」

    = 因果秩序にもかかわらず賞賛と非難は整合すると論じる ━ 本文は硬い決定論者が賞罰を "incoherent" とみなすと述べており、擁護とは正反対。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
embrace a conclusion結論を受け入れるHe embraced the conclusion without protest.
act otherwise別様に行為するWe could not have acted otherwise.
ought to be V-edVされるべきであるThe practice ought to be dismantled.
the apparatus of NNの装置・仕組みthe apparatus of state surveillance
blame and praise非難と賞賛Blame and praise presuppose responsibility.
❝例文

  • The hard determinist embraces the conclusion unflinchingly.

    硬い決定論者はその結論を躊躇なく受け入れる。

  • If we could not have acted otherwise, blame seems incoherent.

    別様に行為し得なかったのなら、非難は不整合に見える。

  • Some argue the apparatus of responsibility ought to be dismantled.

    責任の装置は解体されるべきだと論じる者もいる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

詳細設問は本文の語を言い換えた選択肢を選ぶ。"unflinchingly"=without hesitation, "dismantled"=abolished の対応に注目。

問 3

Which example does the passage use to illustrate the unconstrained agent?

  • A man who pays his taxes out of conviction.
  • A man who hands over his wallet at gunpoint.
  • A will that arises spontaneously from nothing at all.
  • A neuron firing as the inevitable result of prior causes.
Phrase

pays his taxes from conviction

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

信念から納税する人が非拘束的=自由な行為主体の例。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「A man who pays his taxes out of conviction.」

正解

本文は "A man who pays his taxes from conviction is free; one who surrenders his wallet at gunpoint is not." と対比する。前者は強制なく自らの理由から行為するため自由であり、両立論の言う非拘束的な行為主体の典型例である。

  • 「A man who hands over his wallet at gunpoint.」

    = 銃を突きつけられて財布を渡す人 ━ これは本文で自由でない (not free) 側、すなわち拘束された行為の例として挙げられている。。

  • 「A will that arises spontaneously from nothing at all.」

    = 何もないところから自然発生する意志 ━ 本文はこれを "arbitrary, not free" とし、自由の例ではなく不整合な要求とみなす。。

  • 「A neuron firing as the inevitable result of prior causes.」

    = 先行原因の必然的帰結としての神経発火 ━ これは決定論を例示する "the firing of a neuron" であり、自由な行為主体の例ではない。。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
from conviction信念から・確信に基づいてShe acted from conviction, not fear.
surrender X at gunpoint銃を突きつけられXを渡すHe surrendered the keys at gunpoint.
under coercion強制の下でA confession under coercion is worthless.
the proximate author of NNの直接の作者the proximate author of one's deeds
genuinely one's own真に自分自身のものdesires that are genuinely one's own
❝例文

  • A man who pays his taxes from conviction acts freely.

    信念から納税する人は自由に行為している。

  • One who surrenders his wallet at gunpoint is not free.

    銃口の下で財布を渡す人は自由ではない。

  • Coercion, not causation, is what undermines freedom here.

    ここで自由を損なうのは因果ではなく強制である。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

対比文 (A is free; B is not) では、設問が問うのがどちら側かを確認。free 側の例と not free 側の例を逆に選ばせる罠が頻出。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。 間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る1級の単元一覧1級の用語集