The illusion of free will paul holbach

Each answer or “folio” should be around 500 words.

The most accepted form of determinism is causal determinism, as argued for by Holbach. Trace his argument. He claims that people are wrong to think that free will is choice or absence of constraint—why? What would free will be for him and why don’t we have it? If we don’t have free will, why is it that we think we do? Explain.
The Introduction to Part Four of our text puts forth the Dilemma of Determinism. Give and explain this dilemma. What appears to be at stake if people can’t be held morally responsible?
Sine A.J. Ayer claims people can be held responsible, how would he deal with the Dilemma of determinism? In your response be clear to explain his argument for compatablism.
Ayer claims that traditional (or hard Determinists like Holbach) make 3 mistakes. First, explain what a hard determinist is. Next, clearly explain each of the 3 errors he claims these theorists make when it comes to defining “causation” or “causal laws”. Finally, since they are wrong about what causation is, what does he think the correct definition is and what reasons does he give for holding his definition?
In Chisholm’s Argument that people can be held morally responsible, he makes a distinction between two kinds of cause: immanent and transuent. Explain this distinction and how he thinks it gets him out of the dilemma of determinism (from question 2). How does the distinct salvage moral responsibility? While Holbach does not use the term “immanent causation” he gives a description of it and says it’s the primary mistake that advocates of free will make. What, for Holbach, is wrong with the idea of immanent causation?