Baron Paul's Essay 'A Defense Of Determinism'

A Defense of Determinism Determinism receives more public attention and inclinations from people because it offers a causal explanation for everything that happens. Opposite to Libertarians’ world based on mere chance and undetermined actions which seems less plausible, Determinists believe that “whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause”(388), in other words, any state at any given time is completely determined by it’s prior state. According to the theory of compatibilists, reconciliation between causal determinism and free will can be significantly achieved by admitting that determinism is true, but only if we are acting voluntarily then can this action be call free. Soft determinism
People cry over their mistakes, and presume that they could have done something greater or undo their misprints if they were given a second chance. Naïve or not, those who often regret are under an illusion that they have the power to conjure up another option as the deliberation happens. Baron Paul further explains the concept of deliberation in his essay “A Defense of Determinism”. To deliberate is to oscillate between two motives, until one of two causes has overpowered the other; to determine its will; he is not free for a single instant. (398) For instance, John wished that he hadn’t ordered pizza tonight because it wasn’t fresh as it is before; however, he couldn’t get a burger or something else as a result of his personal preference towards pizza. The process of choosing between burger and pizza, according to Libertarians, John was going through a struggle of free will, but determinists argues that John’s struggle is incoherent with free will because people could have known John’s decision beforehand, and he wouldn’t pick burger despite the fact that it looks like he has an alternative though. Even if John decided to have burger instead of pizza next time, it could be explained by deterministic view that his action is predetermined by the prior state, which is his unpleasant experience with pizza the other
A loophole that is extremely subtle always misleading readers to consider determinism and fatalism equivalent. However, the definitions of these two theories seem to vary considerably. Fatalism focuses on the immutable end regardless of any pre-conditions, on the other hand, Determinism honors the causality. People who use Fatalism and Determinism interchangeably would claim that both theories will lead up to the same end, because everything is determined somehow according to both views. To avoid being confused with fatalism and criticized by Libertarians for its pessimistic worldview, it’s crucial to include random chance to the definition of determinism. No matter how persuasive Determinism is, the dilemma of fifty and fifty might happen while deliberating. For example, a person may want an apple or a pear in the same degree, taking everything into account including desires, reasons, propensity and etc. Till this point, the application of causality may not work, and the chance would take over our mental process, namely, deliberation. Admitting randomness as a part of our actions would not give away to Libertarians because they assume that free actions must be done voluntarily rather than by