Hume argues in his inquiry that necessity and liberty are compatible and that the dispute between the two is due only to incorrect definitions of the terms (Hume 92 ). The question he asks in his article is whether we are responsible for our actions if all events are necessary. This article will argue that since all events are necessary and we are not free to choose them, we are therefore not responsible for our actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay. Hume begins his investigation with the problem of induction. Hume first defines human reasoning in two ways: “Relations of ideas” and “Questions of fact” (40). Relations of ideas are independently true according to their own definitions, such as geometry and mathematics. For example, it is always true that a triangle will have three sides because, by definition, a triangle is a figure with three sides. Questions of fact are based on experience and are all “grounded in cause and effect.” (41) Unlike relations of ideas, they are not true by definition. Since a cause does not necessarily define its effect, any number of effects of a given cause are equally logical. Hume then applies this logic to causality, which is a relationship of cause and effect. Although A's have always been followed by B's, it is just as likely that a given A would not be followed by a B' (44). Causality is therefore not a relation of ideas but a question of fact, and “can be discovered not by reason, but by experience”. (42) The only experience of cause and effect is that it has been so in the past. However, the only experience that the future is like the past is that in the past, the future has been like the past. Assuming that the future will be like the past on the basis that it happened in the past is assuming what needed to be proven, which is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Hume concludes that there is no deductive proof that the future will be like the past. Therefore, there is no evidence of a causal connection, or as Hume defines a "necessary connection", between the A's and the B's. Hume suggests that rather than causes and effects being necessarily connected, they are on the contrary, constantly spouses; rather than A's causing B's, A's are followed by B's (80). There is no necessary connection between constantly united pairs; it is possible that a given A is not followed by B (85). Our notion of causality comes from habituation: the inference of B given the impression of A (87). "After the constant conjunction of two objects... we are determined by custom alone to expect one from the appearance of the other." (57) Hume asserts that we “must apply the same reasoning to the actions and wills of intelligent agents.” (97) All events in nature follow a set of laws and are necessary. Human action, if it proves to be identical to nature, would also be necessary. Hume states that the idea of ​​necessity comes from constant conjunction and inference and rests "entirely on the uniformity observable in the operations of nature." (92) He believes that the same uniformity observable in the natural world also prevails in human action (94). Hume asserts that the fundamental inclinations—ambition, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, and public spirit—form in varying degrees all human feeling (93). He also notes that throughout history, humans generally react in the same way to the same stimulus. Hume concludes that, just as effects are constantly linked to their causes, actionsHuman beings are also constantly linked to their motivations. Hume then argues that human interaction depends on the belief "that men... must continue, in their operations, as they have always found them." (98-99) The purpose of human interaction is that, through interaction, everyone can satisfy their inclinations. A store owner offers products at a reasonable price because he believes he will receive more customers by doing so. If humans did not believe in the uniformity of human action, fundamental human interaction would fail. If the store owner thought that offering products at a reasonable price would not attract customers but would instead elicit a random reaction, he would have no reason to offer reasonable prices or sell products. Hume concludes that humans infer from past experience that human interaction will be the same in the future. Since human action, like nature, is based on the constant conjunction of cause and effect, as well as the inference that the future will be like the past, Hume concludes that human action and nature are one: they are both necessary and uniformly follow internal principles (97). Since human action is necessary, "the connection between all causes and effects is also necessary, and its apparent uncertainty proceeds in certain cases from the secret opposition of contrary causes." (96-97) All events resulting in human action are equally necessary, including invisible forces. An example is that of a man who is happy to have found money on the ground. The individual aspects - the fact that someone left money on the floor, the man being in the right place at the right time, his predisposition to become happy when he finds money - all contribute equally to creating a circumstance for which man will be happy. Necessity can predict someone's actions (95). A person known for drinking Coke usually continues to order it because it is in their character to do so. Necessity can also explain the deviation of character. “The most irregular and unexpected resolutions of men can often be explained by those who know all the particular circumstances of their character and situation.” (97). Hume asserts that if we know a man's character and all the external circumstances, we can explain all the deviations of the character. For example, the same man will one day be able to order a Sprite. This may seem unusual, but upon closer inspection it turns out that the day before he saw an ad with his favorite celebrity endorsing Sprite. Hume argues that the necessity of human action is compatible with freedom. Hume defines freedom as “a power to act or not to act, according to the determinations of the will... if we choose to remain at rest, we can; if we choose to move, we can too.” (104) Hume argues that free will exists as long as the power to choose is unconstrained. A man who runs a red light does so of his own free will; a man held at gunpoint doing the same thing is not. Hume argues that the compatibility between necessity and freedom is at the heart of morality (108). If a wrongdoing were not caused by a person's character, or freely chosen by them, only the action, not the person, would be to blame. Actions reflect a person because they derive from their character, defined by their past experiences and freely chosen by them. “Actions make a person criminal simply because they are evidence of criminal principles in the mind.” (107) Actions are governed by character, and character is governed by past experiences. As, 1995.