Can someone show or help me find the premises of this?
Suppose your friend, standing next to you at a party, suddenly lifts her arm and slaps you in the face. You will be inclined to hold her responsible for this action: to blame her for your sore face, resent her for what she did, and think ill of her moral character. But, suppose you find out that her arm is tied to a fish-line, pulled by someone on a balcony above. Your face is still sore, but now you will hardly be inclined to blame her for what happened. Why? Because she wasn't in control of the movement of her arm; once the person in the balcony pulled the line, a sequence of events was put in motion that ended up with your face getting slapped. Given the tug, the rest of the situation, and the laws of nature, your face was going to get slapped. She had no choice. Her movement was the result of a prior, remote event. She was not free to do otherwise. So how can you blame her? But if she is not free, are any of us ever free? For the laws of nature do not just concern fish-lines, they concern all events inside and outside our bodies. If nature obeys universal laws, then our actions are just the most recent parts of a causal sequence of ever more remote events, the earliest parts of which occurred long before we were born. If the fact that the movement of your friends arm is explained by the earlier tug on the fish-line means that she is not free, doesn't the fact that all our actions can be explained by remote events and the working of general laws mean that none of us is ever free?
To identify the premises in this passage, we can look for the statements that the author uses to support their argument. The author's main argument seems to be that if someone's actions are causally determined by prior events, they cannot be held responsible for those actions. Let's break down the premises:
1. If someone's actions are caused by prior events, they cannot be held responsible.
- This is implied throughout the passage, as the author argues that because the friend's arm movement was caused by the person pulling the fish-line, they cannot be blamed.
2. The movement of the friend's arm was caused by the person pulling the fish-line.
- This is explicitly stated in the passage. The author explains that the friend's arm movement was not under their control but was a result of the prior event.
3. If someone is not free, they cannot be held responsible.
- This premise is not explicitly stated, but it can be inferred from the author's argument. The author suggests that because the friend's arm movement was determined by prior events, they are not free to act otherwise and, therefore, cannot be blamed.
4. All actions can be explained by prior events and general laws.
- This premise is explicitly stated in the passage. The author argues that if universal laws of nature apply to all events, including our actions, then none of us are ever truly free because our actions are determined by the causal sequence of events.
So, to summarize, the premises in this passage are:
1. If someone's actions are caused by prior events, they cannot be held responsible.
2. The movement of the friend's arm was caused by the person pulling the fish-line.
3. If someone is not free, they cannot be held responsible.
4. All actions can be explained by prior events and general laws.