Determinism Or Free Will?
Free will refers to the idea that every individual is free to act in whichever way he/she chooses without being forced or controlled by any other aspects. According to the concept of free will, every individual is responsible for their actions unless they are children or insane. The determinism approach argues that there is a cause for everything that happens; nothing happens just by chance. Some philosophers claim that determinism exists outside the individual while others say that it is internal. This essay will address the free will-determinism problem, whether individuals have free will or not, and whether people can be held responsible for their actions.
According to an article by John Tierney on the New York Times, titled "Do You Have …show more content…
Free Will? Yes, It's the Only Choice," free will can vary from one individual to another, but it's a gut belief that starts from a very young age. People develop free will regardless of the environment they grow up in. Philosophers have found out that people from different cultures all over the world tend to agree that people who live in a deterministic world cannot be held responsible for their actions. If everything that happens is caused by things that occur before the act, then it is only logical that individuals are not held accountable for their actions because they have no control over them (Tierney, 2011). However, other philosophers argue that individuals do make choices, even though those choices are determined or influenced by previous events; therefore, individuals are responsible for all their actions.
Baron d'Holbach, an 18th Century philosopher, gave his argument on determinism by focusing his brand on causal determinism which is the claim that there is a cause for everything that happens.
He argued that all the desires and beliefs in human beings are caused based on things that are going on in the brain. People tend to be ignorant of the causes that result in the desires which eventually constitute the result. They always believe that they develop the desires on their own. Holbach thinks that there is always a cause for those desires. The strongest desires constitute the will and then it is the will the eventually produces our action (Holbach, …show more content…
1770).
Sometimes there is a physical barrier that prevents us from fulfilling our desires. For example, a prisoner locked in a cell may want to go somewhere but is prevented by the bar door. When the barrier is removed; for example when the prisoners are set free, they think they are free, but they are still acting on their strongest desire to guide their actions. If all these stages are all causally connected, then there is a compelling connection between our actions and the environment. Everything is caused by something; there's no single moment that we have free will. It is just that the system is so complicated that people are unaware of the causes. They are ignorant of the causes; hence they think they have free will.
According to Holbach, we don't have control over our desires. Free will is not the same as choice. One might think he has a choice to do whatever he wishes, but what he doesn't know is that whatever he does is caused by his strongest desire. A choice is merely an illusion. Free will is also not the same as options of constraint. The reasons why we act in the absence of restrictions is because we are controlled by our strongest desire. Holbach claimed that free will is the absence of necessity (Holbach, 1770). Necessity means that something is ‘impossible not to occur.' To show that you have free will, you need to prove that it was possible for you to act in a different way than you did.
There are several assumptions that accompany the concept of determinism and whether people can be liable for their actions. The first one is that if determinism is real, then individuals cannot be blamed or held morally accountable. This means that if our actions are caused by something else other than ourselves, we cannot be blamed for those actions. The moral responsibility falls on the causal chain. For instance, if another car hits mine from the back and my car eventually hits another one, I cannot be blamed for the damages on the vehicle that mine hit (Holbach, 1770).
Another assumption is that if indeterminism is true, then no one can be held morally responsible for their actions. This means that if everything occurs randomly, then nobody can take any blame for their actions. For instance, if two brothers went out to camp in the snow and one of them gets killed by an avalanche, the other brother cannot be held responsible for murder because it can be considered as an accident (Holbach, 1770). We cannot pin any moral responsibility on an avalanche which has no brain and cannot think for itself!
Both assumptions cannot be false; which means that one of them must be true, and both of them have the same conclusion. Therefore, just like the article indicates, individuals living in a world full of determinism cannot be held responsible for their actions.
However, a British philosopher, A.
J. Ayer tried to show that determinism can be true but people can still be held morally responsible because causal determinism is compatible with free will. His stand is not based on the fact that some actions are free while others are caused. His position of compatibilism is that all actions are caused, but some actions are also free. He claims that if we can ascribe free will to people, then we can as well hold them morally responsible. Most people feel like there is something constraining them; that they want to act in a certain way but there is something that is keeping them from doing it. They also feel compulsion; they don't want to do something, but somebody or something is forcing them to do it. Ayer claims that in the normal sense when these constraints and compulsions are removed, individuals can be considered to be acting out of their own free will. Therefore, free will is the absence of constraint or compulsion (Ayer, 1980).
Ayer puts forth his theory of compatibilism. It essentially argues that determinism and free will, and by extension moral responsibility, can coincide. As far as Ayer is concerned, so long as the causal chain leading to our actions can be explained, it is "sufficient for the postulate of determinism". Just as well, as long as we act free of the influence of any form of constraint, then we are considered to be acting freely. And since both cases are not mutually exclusive, Ayer argues that we can retain our sense
of moral responsibility in spite of determinism holding true (Ayer, 1980).
In my opinion, human beings have the power or the ability to initiate a causal sequence and act without being acted upon. Human beings can engage in actions that are uncaused but are also not random. The laws of nature influence our behaviour, but they don't force us to act. The laws of nature act on us and produce various desires, but we don't have to act on those desires. Humans can influence their actions and act against their strongest desires. Therefore, humans can be held responsible for whatever they do.
Conclusion
Free will promises to remain a debatable subject for both philosophers and scientists. As people come up with new theories to explain whether people have free will or not, other concepts also arise to support or critique the new theories. Philosophers and scientists are involved in a cycle of explanations that show no signs of slowing down, but the fact remains that an individual who has a sane mind and can make reasonable decisions is responsible for his own choices and actions.
According to an article by John Tierney on the New York Times, titled "Do You Have …show more content…
Free Will? Yes, It's the Only Choice," free will can vary from one individual to another, but it's a gut belief that starts from a very young age. People develop free will regardless of the environment they grow up in. Philosophers have found out that people from different cultures all over the world tend to agree that people who live in a deterministic world cannot be held responsible for their actions. If everything that happens is caused by things that occur before the act, then it is only logical that individuals are not held accountable for their actions because they have no control over them (Tierney, 2011). However, other philosophers argue that individuals do make choices, even though those choices are determined or influenced by previous events; therefore, individuals are responsible for all their actions.
Baron d'Holbach, an 18th Century philosopher, gave his argument on determinism by focusing his brand on causal determinism which is the claim that there is a cause for everything that happens.
He argued that all the desires and beliefs in human beings are caused based on things that are going on in the brain. People tend to be ignorant of the causes that result in the desires which eventually constitute the result. They always believe that they develop the desires on their own. Holbach thinks that there is always a cause for those desires. The strongest desires constitute the will and then it is the will the eventually produces our action (Holbach, …show more content…
1770).
Sometimes there is a physical barrier that prevents us from fulfilling our desires. For example, a prisoner locked in a cell may want to go somewhere but is prevented by the bar door. When the barrier is removed; for example when the prisoners are set free, they think they are free, but they are still acting on their strongest desire to guide their actions. If all these stages are all causally connected, then there is a compelling connection between our actions and the environment. Everything is caused by something; there's no single moment that we have free will. It is just that the system is so complicated that people are unaware of the causes. They are ignorant of the causes; hence they think they have free will.
According to Holbach, we don't have control over our desires. Free will is not the same as choice. One might think he has a choice to do whatever he wishes, but what he doesn't know is that whatever he does is caused by his strongest desire. A choice is merely an illusion. Free will is also not the same as options of constraint. The reasons why we act in the absence of restrictions is because we are controlled by our strongest desire. Holbach claimed that free will is the absence of necessity (Holbach, 1770). Necessity means that something is ‘impossible not to occur.' To show that you have free will, you need to prove that it was possible for you to act in a different way than you did.
There are several assumptions that accompany the concept of determinism and whether people can be liable for their actions. The first one is that if determinism is real, then individuals cannot be blamed or held morally accountable. This means that if our actions are caused by something else other than ourselves, we cannot be blamed for those actions. The moral responsibility falls on the causal chain. For instance, if another car hits mine from the back and my car eventually hits another one, I cannot be blamed for the damages on the vehicle that mine hit (Holbach, 1770).
Another assumption is that if indeterminism is true, then no one can be held morally responsible for their actions. This means that if everything occurs randomly, then nobody can take any blame for their actions. For instance, if two brothers went out to camp in the snow and one of them gets killed by an avalanche, the other brother cannot be held responsible for murder because it can be considered as an accident (Holbach, 1770). We cannot pin any moral responsibility on an avalanche which has no brain and cannot think for itself!
Both assumptions cannot be false; which means that one of them must be true, and both of them have the same conclusion. Therefore, just like the article indicates, individuals living in a world full of determinism cannot be held responsible for their actions.
However, a British philosopher, A.
J. Ayer tried to show that determinism can be true but people can still be held morally responsible because causal determinism is compatible with free will. His stand is not based on the fact that some actions are free while others are caused. His position of compatibilism is that all actions are caused, but some actions are also free. He claims that if we can ascribe free will to people, then we can as well hold them morally responsible. Most people feel like there is something constraining them; that they want to act in a certain way but there is something that is keeping them from doing it. They also feel compulsion; they don't want to do something, but somebody or something is forcing them to do it. Ayer claims that in the normal sense when these constraints and compulsions are removed, individuals can be considered to be acting out of their own free will. Therefore, free will is the absence of constraint or compulsion (Ayer, 1980).
Ayer puts forth his theory of compatibilism. It essentially argues that determinism and free will, and by extension moral responsibility, can coincide. As far as Ayer is concerned, so long as the causal chain leading to our actions can be explained, it is "sufficient for the postulate of determinism". Just as well, as long as we act free of the influence of any form of constraint, then we are considered to be acting freely. And since both cases are not mutually exclusive, Ayer argues that we can retain our sense
of moral responsibility in spite of determinism holding true (Ayer, 1980).
In my opinion, human beings have the power or the ability to initiate a causal sequence and act without being acted upon. Human beings can engage in actions that are uncaused but are also not random. The laws of nature influence our behaviour, but they don't force us to act. The laws of nature act on us and produce various desires, but we don't have to act on those desires. Humans can influence their actions and act against their strongest desires. Therefore, humans can be held responsible for whatever they do.
Conclusion
Free will promises to remain a debatable subject for both philosophers and scientists. As people come up with new theories to explain whether people have free will or not, other concepts also arise to support or critique the new theories. Philosophers and scientists are involved in a cycle of explanations that show no signs of slowing down, but the fact remains that an individual who has a sane mind and can make reasonable decisions is responsible for his own choices and actions.