Free-Will Vs Determinism

Difference between free will and determinism

free will vs. determinism

The question of free will vs. determinism has been debated for a long time. Some people believe humans have the capability to use free will. For many theists, free will is a gift from God. They believe that if people did not have free will then they are not morally responsible for their actions. However others argue that human’s actions are due to determinism, so if humans follow the course of natural law, it is hard to believe that actions are freely chosen. Except then the question occurs, why anything should be debated if everything is based on determinism.

Free will is the ability to make free choices that are unconstrained from outer situations or by fate
or divine will. The notion of free will has religious, ethical and scientific interferences. For example in the religious sense, free will entails that it does one does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it has problems about whether one can be held morally responsible for their actions. Free will has been an ongoing argument as philosophers disagree with the term free will. An example would be, if a family lives in Dusseldorf they choose whether to support Fortuna football team or not. However this afflicts with the fact that if everyone supports Fortuna then it is common for them to also support the team based on peer pressure.

Determinism has a variety of meanings; casual determinism is the theory that future events are somewhat based on the events from our past. Local determinism which is the theory that all plans are either wrong or right. Theological determinism, this is the theory that god determines what we will do. And finally biological determinism is the idea that all of humans behaviors, beliefs and desires are set by our genetics. For example homosexuality vs. heterosexuality or racism vs. patriotism; this is generally based on past recollections of what family is telling you or what you pick up throughout life. It is not something that suddenly happens; it progresses through time based on past experiences.

There is also another type of determinism which is slightly more realistic this is called Soft determinism is looks at it slightly differently, it argues that people’s behavior is inhibited by the environment, but only to a certain extent. It also means that there is a small part of free will in all behavior shown by humans; however it can also be controlled by outside forces.

HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN FREEDOM

One way of approaching that very large question, "What is human nature?" is by confronting the somewhat smaller question of human choice and human freedom. Do we have free will? Do my decisions originate with me or is everything determined? The issue has been central in both western and eastern philosophy, and had its origins in western religions over concerns about God's creative powers and omniscience. Eastern religions lean in the direction of a more impersonal Divine process which proceeds in an ineligible and necessary way. But, the modern scientific view of both the natural world and the human world raises many of the same questions and challenges to the notion of human freedom. The Darwinian view of the origin of the human species, DNA and genetic research and contemporary break-throughs in neurophysiology lend strong evidence to the view that what we are and what we do are a function of our biological make up. Psychological and sociological theories, by and large, lead in the same direction. Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner differ radically in their approach to understanding human beings, but both of them share a strongly deterministic view. Fundamental to Freud is the notion that there are no human accidents. Slips of the tongue, gestures, dreams, hand washing are all caused by deep seated factors of which we are mostly unaware. The Unconscious dominates and "controls" our conscious lives, and most often the REAL reasons for our actions are beyond our knowledge and control. B.F. Skinner and behaviorism are not as popular as they once were, but many of his central theses have become part of common sense. Our behavior (or actions) are the result of the way our environment (parents, schools, society) reinforced or failed to reinforce past behavior. Essentially, we just are a big bundle of reinforced behavior patterns. Human behavior is more complex but no different in KIND than the rat who learns to run mazes by being reinforced or the pigeon who is taught how to play ping-pong. A classic debate has been whether nature (genetics) or nurture (environment) is the more fundamental for human nature, but the deterministic point of view wins on either account. Human beings are a product of nature AND nurture. Many of you are interested in psychology so that you can understand human behavior, but our most fundamental way of understanding phenomena of any kind is to delve into causes. Psychology is often characterized as a science which attempts to explain and predict human behavior. The view that human choices and actions are caused is part of a larger philosophical theory called DETERMINISM.

DETERMINISM , very simply stated, is the theory that all events are caused; we live in an ordered universe and all change occurs with law-like regularity.
This is a metaphysical view about the nature of things and the world. It is sometimes argued that determinism implies that everything in the future can be, in principle, predicted, and that events in the past are, in principle, explainable. There are natural laws of science which have the form: All X's are (or, are followed by) Y's which is equivalent to: If X occurs then Y occurs. Thus, if we know the initial condition (X occurs) and the law (If X then Y) we can explain/predict the occurrence of Y. Determinism is the contention that all physical (and mental) events in the universe can be incorporated under such laws. This is NOT the view that we can actually predict everything. Our ignorance of facts is enormous and we certainly do not know all the laws and statistical regularities which describe events

Rocks of sufficient size and thrown with sufficient speed cause glass to break. Lowering the temperature of water below 32 degrees causes water to freeze. Knives through hearts cause death. There are causes for why my car starts, and if it doesn't, there are causes for that too. When we say that some event "x" causes some event "y" we seem to be asserting that given that x occurred, then y HAD to occur, or that it MUST
occur.

III. HARD DETERMINISM is the theory that because DETERMINISM is true, no one is free; no one has free will (or choice) and no one truly acts freely. Since philosophers like to give arguments for theories in a standard form of argument.

1. Determinism is true: all events are caused.

2. Therefore, all human desires and choices are caused.

3. For an action to be free it would have to be the result of a choice, desire or act of will which had no cause. That is, free WILL means that the Will or choosing "mechanism" initiates the action.

________________________________________________

4. Therefore there can be no free choices or free will.

The HARD Determinist does specify what WOULD have to be the case for there to be freedom: A free act or choice would be one which is uncaused, or happened independent of causes, or completely disconnected from preceding events. The "Will" or person doing the choosing and acting would have to be a primum mobile (first mover), a new beginning, or an original creative source of activity. But, this cannot be, it is argued, since surely actions are caused by wants and desires, wants and desires flow from our character, and our character is formed by environment and heredity. Trace the causes of any event or action back and it will have sources which are outside ourselves and our control.

Evidence for determinism comes from common sense and science. You simply would not believe a medical report which announced that it had been discovered that cancer had no cause, or that there was no cause for your car not starting. In human affairs too, we firmly believe that the better we get to know someone the less surprised we will be about what they do in particular circumstances. In other words the better we get to know the initial conditions (his/her character) the more reliable predictions we can make. When you make a mistake you often say, "I didn't know ol' Billybob as well as I thought." You attribute your mistake to ignorance of all the initial conditions; you do not believe that the action was without cause. The progress of science, the great advances in explaining and predicting events in both the natural and the social sciences which heretofore seemed deeply mysterious is offered as evidence that all events could be explained if we searched long enough. Psychology as a science of human behavior is based on the notion that one can come up with causes of behavior and formulate laws of behavior. Depending on the particular approach to psychology, these laws could link up behavior with mental antecedents, mental events with other mental events, or it may be found that all so-called mental activity has a physical cause or basis in brain activity. That is, it may turn out that explanations of all human activity will be reducible to biological or neurological explanations. Behaviorism is one psychological theory which claims that behavior can be understood and explained in terms of patterns of reinforcement without appealing to mental events. But determinism does not rise or fall with any particular psychological theory. Nineteenth century psychology which emphasized introspection of consciousness, still tried to find laws governing thought processes and indeed the expression "laws of thought" is common in 19th century psychology textbooks. The last kind of evidence comes from introspective analysis of our behavior. Often when we really think about why we did something we find causes of which we were not first aware. Sometimes we find unconscious motivations which originate from happenings in early childhood. Other times we can be deeply puzzled about the causes of our own behavior, but we invariably think that with enough analysis or introspection the causes could be found.

Some puzzles about determinism: What is the logical status of the thesis: all events are caused; that is, what if anything would count against the thesis? If one tries to bring up a counterexample, the determinist standard answer seems to be "We don't know what the cause is, but there must be one." But, this is just begging the question. Secondly, do we know what we mean when we say, "x causes y?" Does this mean that y must occur or that y necessarily occurs, given that x occurs? Since, we only know what causes what by observation, it seems that all we can assert is "y always has followed x." That is, there is an invariable and regular set of experiences we have had, but this is a far cry from saying that y MUST occur, given that x occurred. Thirdly, Is their analysis of the meaning of "free" correct? Do we mean that something is uncaused we say that it is free? Finally, haven't deterministic models of the physics of the universe been challenged by indeterministic ones. Isn't there suppose to be a basic indeterminacy at the quantum level? And, wouldn't this indicate that there are some chance elements in nature?

free will vs. determinism
|[pic] |

<Back to Last Page > <Glossary Index>

Definition:
The question of free will is one which has been hotly debated for millennia. Some people believe that humans have the capacity for free will - the ability to choose their actions without being forced to follow a certain course by either by the influence of others or by natural laws. For many theists, free will is regarded as a special gift from God. The notion of human free will is also an important premise for a lot of what happens in human society - in particular, when it comes to our legal system. Free will is necessary for the notion of personal responsibility. If people do not have free will, then it is difficult to argue that they are personally and morally responsible for their actions - and if that is the case, how can they be punished for their misdeeds? In fact, how can they be praised for the good things they do, if those actions were not also freely chosen?

Others, however, argue that if the universe itself is deterministic in nature, then human actions must also be deterministic - thus, modern determinism tends to be an outgrowth of modern science. If human actions simply follow the course of natural law, then it is difficult to hold that those actions can be "freely" chosen. Those who advocate determinism run into something of a contradiction, however, when they try to argue their point with those who argue for free will. If it is true that nothing is freely chosen, then those who believe in the existence of free will do not do so by choice - so what is the point of trying to convince them otherwise? Indeed, what is the point of trying to convince anyone of anything if all events are determined?

One thing to note about the debate between free will and determinism is that both terms tend to be defined in such a way as to explicitly exclude the other. But why must that be the case? The philosophical position of compatibilism argues that these concepts do not need to be defined in such a mutually exclusive manner and that, in fact, both free will and determinism can be compatible.

The problem of free will or determinism is slightly different for the theist. Instead of wondering if natural laws mean that human actions are all determined, the theist must also ask whether or not their god has pre-determined all events in the universe, including their own. If so, that will mean that their ultimate fate will be determined. This position was adopted most completely and explicitly by the Reform theologian John Calvin, who argued that some people are predestined to be saved and some are predestined to be damned, and there is nothing anyone can possibly do about it.

P. F. STRAWSON: FREEDOM AND RESENTMENT

-- The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website --

The doyen of living English philosophers, by these reflections, took hold of and changed the outlook of a good many other philosophers, if not quite enough. He did so, essentially, by assuming that talk of freedom and responsibility is talk not of facts or truths, in a certain sense, but of our attitudes. His more explicit concern was to look again at the question of whether determinism and freedom are consistent with one another -- by shifting attention to certain personal rather than moral attitudes, first of all gratitude and resentment. In the end, he arrived at a kind of Compatibilist or, as he says, Optimist conclusion. That is no doubt a recommendation but not the largest recommendation of this splendidly rich piece of philosophy.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Some philosophers say they do not know what the thesis of determinism is.
Others say, or imply, that they do know what it is. Of these, some—the pessimists perhaps—hold that if the thesis is true, then the concepts of moral obligation and responsibility really have no application, and the practices of punishing and blaming, of expressing moral condemnation and approval, are really unjustified. Others—the optimists perhaps—hold that these concepts and practices in no way lose their raison d’être if the thesis of determinism is true. Some hold even that the justification of these concepts and practices requires the truth of the thesis. There is another opinion which is less frequently voiced: the opinion, it might be said, of the genuine moral sceptic. This is that the notions of moral guilt, of blame, of moral responsibility are inherently confused and that we can see this to be so if we consider the consequences either of the truth of determinism or of its falsity. The holders of this opinion agree with the pessimists that these notions lack application if determinism is true, and add simply that they also lack it if determinism is false. If I am asked which of these parties I belong to, I must say it is the first of all, the party of those who do not know what the thesis of determinism is. But this does not stop me from having some sympathy with the others, and a wish to reconcile them. Should not ignorance, rationally, inhibit such sympathies? Well, of course, though
darkling, one has some inkling—some notion of what sort of thing is being talked about. This lecture is intended as a move towards reconciliation; so. is likely to seem wrongheaded to everyone.

But can there be any possibility of reconciliation between such clearly opposed positions as those of pessimists and optimists about determinism? Well, there might be a formal withdrawal on one side in return for a substantial concession on the other. Thus, suppose the optimist’s position were put like this: (1) the facts as we know them do not show determinism to be false; (2) the facts as we know them supply an adequate basis for the concepts and practices which the pessimist feels to be imperilled by the possibility of determinism’s truth. Now it might be that the optimist is right in this, but is apt to give an inadequate account of the facts as we know them, and of how they constitute an adequate basis for the problematic concepts and practices; that the reasons he gives for the adequacy of the basis are themselves inadequate and leave out something vital. It might be that the pessimist is rightly anxious to get this vital thing back and, in the grip of his anxiety, feels he has to go beyond the facts as we know them; feels that the vital thing can be secure only if, beyond the facts as we know them, there is the further fact that determinism is false. Might he not be brought to make a formal withdrawal in return for a vital concession?

2. Let me enlarge very briefly on this, by way of preliminary only. Some optimists about determinism point to the efficacy of the practices of punishment, and of moral condemnation and approval, in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. (1) In the fact of their efficacy, they suggest, is an adequate basis for these practices; and this fact certainly does not show determinism to be false. To this the pessimists reply, all in a rush, that just punishment and moral condemnation imply moral guilt and guilt implies moral responsibility and moral responsibility implies freedom and freedom implies the falsity of determinism. And to this the optimists are wont to reply in turn that it is true that these practices require freedom in a sense, and the existence of freedom in this sense is one of the facts as we know them. But what ‘freedom’ means here is nothing but the absence of certain conditions the presence of which would make moral condemnation or punishment inappropriate. They have in mind conditions like compulsion by another, or innate incapacity, or insanity, or other less extreme forms of psychological disorder, or the existence of circumstances in which the making of any other choice would be morally inadmissible or would be too much to expect of any man. To this list they are constrained to add other factors which, without exactly being limitations of freedom, may also make moral condemnation or punishment inappropriate or mitigate their force: as some forms of ignorance, mistake, or accident. And the general reason why moral condemnation or punishment are inappropriate when these factors or conditions are present is held to be that the practices in question will be generally efficacious means of regulating behaviour in desirable ways only in cases where these factors are not present. Now the pessimist admits that the facts as we know them include the existence of freedom, the occurrence of cases of free action, in the negative sense which the optimist concedes; and admits, or rather insists, that the existence of freedom in this sense is compatible with the truth of determinism. Then what does the pessimist find missing? When he tries to answer this question, his language is apt to alternate between the very familiar and the very unfamiliar.(2) Thus he may say, familiarly enough, that the man who is the subject of justified punishment, blame or moral condemnation must really deserve it; and then add, perhaps, that, in the case at least where he is blamed for a positive act rather than an omission, the condition of his really deserving blame is something that goes beyond the negative freedoms that the optimist concedes. It is, say, a genuinely free identification of the will with the act. And this is the condition that is incompatible with the truth of determinism.

The conventional, but conciliatory, optimist need not give up yet. He may say: Well, people often decide to do things, really intend to do what they do, know just what they’re doing in doing it; the reasons they think they have for doing what they do, often really are their reasons and not their rationalizations. These facts, too, are included in the facts as we know them. If this is what you mean by freedom—by the identification of the will with the act—then freedom may again be conceded. But again the concession is compatible with the truth of the determinist thesis. For it would not follow from that thesis that nobody decides to do anything; that nobody ever does anything intentionally; that it is false that people sometimes know perfectly well what they are doing. I tried to define freedom negatively. You want to give it a more positive look. But it comes to the same thing. Nobody denies freedom in this sense, or these senses, and nobody claims that the existence of freedom in these senses shows determinism to be false.

But it is here that the lacuna in the optimistic story can be made to show. For the pessimist may be supposed to ask: But why does freedom in this sense justify blame, etc.? You turn towards me first the negative, and then the positive, faces of a freedom which nobody challenges. But the only reason you have given for the practices of moral condemnation and punishment in cases where this freedom is present is the efficacy of these practices in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. But this is not a sufficient basis, it is not even the right sort of basis, for these practices as we understand them.

Now my optimist, being the sort of man he is, is not likely to invoke an intuition of fittingness at this point. So he really has no more to say. And my pessimist, being the sort of man he is, has only one more thing to say; and that is that the admissibility of these practices, as we understand them, demands another kind of freedom, the kind that in turn demands the falsity of the thesis of determinism. But might we not induce the pessimist to give up saying this by giving the optimist something more to say?

3. I have mentioned punishing and moral condemnation and approval; and it is in connection with these practices or attitudes that the issue between optimists and pessimists—or, if one is a pessimist, the issue between determinists and libertarians—is felt to be particularly important. But it is not of these practices and attitudes that I propose, at first, to speak. These practices or attitudes permit, where they do not imply, a certain detachment from the actions or agents which are their objects. I want to speak, at least at first, of something else: of the non-detached attitudes and reactions of people directly involved in transactions with each other; of the attitudes and reactions of offended parties and beneficiaries; of such things as sratitude, resentment, forgiveness, love, and hurt feelings. Perhaps something like the issue between optimists and pessimists arises in this neighbouring field too; and since this field is less crowded with disputants, the issue might here be easier to settle; and if it is settled here, then it might become easier to settle it in the disputant-crowded field.

What I have to say consists largely of commonplaces. So my language, like that of commonplaces generally, will be quite unscientific and imprecise. The central commonplace that I want to insist on is the very great importance that we attach to the attitudes and intentions towards us of other human beings, and the great extent to which our personal feelings and reactions depend upon, or involve, our beliefs about these attitudes and intentions. I can give no simple description of the field of phenomena at the centre of which stands this commonplace truth; for the field is too complex. Much imaginative literature is devoted to exploring its complexities; and we have a large vocabulary for the purpose. There are simplifying styles of handling it in a general way. Thus we may, like La Rochefoucauld, put self-love or self-esteem or vanity at the centre of the picture and point out how it may be caressed by the esteem, or wounded by the indifference or contempt, of others. We might speak, in another jargon, of the need for love, and the loss of security which results from its withdrawal; or, in another, of human self-respect and its connection with the recognition of the individual’s dignity. These simplifications are of use to me only if they help to emphasize how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly of some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of goodwill, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other. If someone treads on my hand accidentally, while trying to help me, the pain may be no less acute than if he treads on it in contemptuous disregard of my existence or with a malevolent wish to injure me. But I shall generally feel in the second case a kind and degree of resentment that I shall not feel in the first. If someone’s actions help me to some benefit I desire, then I am benefited in any case; but if he intended them so to benefit me because of his general goodwill towards me, I shall reasonably feel a gratitude which I should not feel at all if the benefit was an incidental consequence, unintended or even regretted by him, of some plan of action with a different aim.

These examples are of actions which confer benefits or inflict injuries over and above any conferred or inflicted by the mere manifestation of attitude and intention themselves. We should consjder also in how much of our behaviour the benefit or injury resides mainly or entirely in the manifestation of attitude itself. So it is with good manners, and much of what we call kindness, on the one hand; with deliberate rudeness, studied indifference, or insult on the other. Besides resentment and gratitude, I mentioned just now forgiveness. This is a rather unfashionable subject in moral philosophy at present; but to be forgiven is something we sometimes ask, and forgiving is something we sometimes say we do. To ask to be forgiven is in part to acknowledge that the attitude displayed in our actions was such as might properly be resented and in part to repudiate that attitude for the future (or at least for the immediate future); and to forgive is to accept the repudiation and to forswear the resentment.

We should think of the many different kinds of relationship which we can have with other people—as sharers of a common interest; as members of the same family; as colleagues; as friends; as lovers; as chance parties to an enormous range of transactions and encounters. Then we should think, in each of these connections in turn, and in others, of the kind of importance we attach to the attitudes and intentions towards us of those who stand in these relationships to us, and of the kinds of reactive attitudes and feelings to which we ourselves are prone. In general, we demand some degree of goodwill or regard on the part of those who stand in these relationships to us, though the forms we require it to take vary widely in different connections. The range and intensity of our reactive attitudes towards goodwill, its absence or its opposite vary no less widely. I have mentioned, specifically, resentment and gratitude; and they are a usefully opposed pair. But, of course, there is a whole continuum of reactive attitude and feeling stretching on both sides of these and—the most comfortable area—in between them.

The object of these commonplaces is to try to keep before our minds something it is easy to forget when we are engaged in philosophy, especially in our cool, contemporary style, viz. what it is actually like to be involved in ordinary interpersonal relationships, ranging from the most intimate to the most casual.

4.It is one thing to ask about the general causes of these reactive attitudes I have alluded to; it is another to ask about the variations to which they are subject, the particular conditions in which they do or do not seem natural or reasonable or appropriate; and it is a third thing to ask what it would be like, what it is like, not to suffer them. I am not much concerned with the first question; but I am with the second; and perhaps even more with the third.

Let us consider, then, occasions for resentment: situations in which one person is offended or injured by the action of another and in which—in the absence of special considerations—the offended person might naturally or normally be expected to feel resentment. Then let us consider what sorts of special considerations might be expected to modify or mollify this feeling or remove it altogether. It needs no saying now how multifarious these considerations are. But, for my purpose, I think they can be roughly divided into two kinds. To the first group belong all those which might give occasion for the employment of such expressions as ‘He didn’t mean to’, ‘He hadn’t realized’, ‘He didn’t know’; and also all those which might give occasion for the use of the phrase ‘He couldn’t help it’, when this is supported by such phrases as ‘He was pushed’, ‘He had to do it’, ‘It was the only way’, ‘They left him no alternative’, etc. Obviously these various pleas, and the kinds of situations in which they would be appropriate, differ from each other in striking and important ways. But for my present purpose they have something still more important in common. None of them invites us to suspend towards the agent, either at the time of his action or in general, our ordinary reactive attitudes. They do not invite us to view the agent as one in respect of whom these attitudes are in any way inappropriate. They invite us to view the injury as one in respect of which a particular one of these attitudes is inappropriate. They do not invite us to see the agent as other than a fully responsible agent. They invite us to see the injury as one for which he was not fully, or at all, responsible. They do not suggest that the agent is in any way an inappropriate object of that kind of demand for goodwill or regard which is reflected in our ordinary reactive attitudes. They suggest instead that the fact of in jury was not in this case incompatible with that demand’s being fulfilled, that the fact of injury was quite consistent with the agent’s attitude and intentions being just what we demand they should be.(3) The agent was just ignorant of the injury he was causing, or had lost his balance through being pushed or had reluctantly to cause the injury for reasons which acceptably override his reluctance. The offering of such pleas by the agent and their acceptance by the sufferer is something in no way opposed to, or outside the context of, ordinary inter-personal relationships and the manifestation of ordinary reactive attitudes. Since things go wrong and situations are complicated, it is an essential and integral element in the transactions which are the life of these relationships.

The second group of considerations is very different. I shall take them in two subgroups of which the first is far less important than the second. In connection with the first subgroup we may think of such statements as ‘He wasn’t himself’, ‘He has been under very great strain recently’, ‘He was acting under post-hypnotic suggestion’; in connection with the second, we may think of ‘He’s only a child’, ‘He’s a hopeless schizophrenic’, ‘His mind has been systematically perverted’, ‘That’s purely compulsive behaviour on his part’. Such pleas as these do, as pleas of my first general group do not, invite us to suspend our ordinary reactive attitudes towards the agent, either at the time of his action or all the time. They do not invite us to see the agent’s action in a way consistent with the full retention of ordinary inter-personal attitudes and merely inconsistent with one particular attitude. They invite us to view the agent himself in a different light from the light in which we should normally view one who has acted as he has acted. I shall not linger over the first subgroup of cases. Though they perhaps raise, in the short term, questions akin to those raised, in the long term, by the second subgroup, we may dismiss them without considering those questions by taking that admirably suggestive phrase, ‘He wasn’t himself’, with the seriousness that—for all its being logically comic—it deserves. We shall not feel resentment against the man he is for the action done by the man he is not; or at least we shall feel less. We normally have to deal with him under normal stresses; so we shall not feel towards him, when he acts as he does under abnormal stresses, as we should have felt towards him had he acted as he did under normal stresses.

The second and more important subgroup of cases allows that the circumstances were normal, but presents the agent as psychologically abhormal—or as morally undeveloped. The agent was himself; but he is warped or deranged, neurotic or just a child. When we see someone in such a light as this, all our reactive attitudes tend to be profoundly modified. I must deal here in crude dichotomies and ignore the ever-interesting and ever-illuminating varieties of case. What I want to contrast is the attitude (or range of attitudes) of involvement or participation in a human relationship, on the one hand, and what might be called the objective attitude (or range of attitudes) to another human being, on the other. Even in the same situation, I must add, they are not altogether exclusive of each other; but they are, profoundly, opposed to each other. To adopt the objective attitude to another human being is to see him, perhaps, as an object of social policy; as a sub ject for what, in a wide range of sense, might be called treatment; as something certainly to be taken account, perhaps precautionary account, of; to be managed or handled or cured or trained; perhaps simply to be avoided, though this gerundive is not peculiar to cases of objectivity of attitude. The objective attitude may be emotionally toned in many ways, but not in all ways: it may include repulsion or fear, it may include pity or even love, though not all kinds of love. But it cannot include the range of reactive feelings and attitudes which belong to involvement or participation with others in inter-personal human relationships; it cannot include resentment, gratitude, forgiveness, anger, or the sort of love which two adults can sometimes be said to feel reciprocally, for each other. If your attitude towards someone is wholly objective, then though you may light him, you cannot quarrel with him, and though you may talk to him, even negotiate with him, you cannot reason with him. You can at most pretend to quarrel, or to reason, with him.

Seeing someone, then, as warped or deranged or compulsive in behaviour or peculiarly unfortunate in his formative circumstances—seeing someone so tends, at least to some extent, to set him apart from normal participant reactive attitudes on the part of one who so sees him, tends to promote, at least in the civilized, objective attitudes. But there is something curious to add to this. The objective attitude is not only something we naturally tend to fall into in cases like these, where participant attitudes are partially or wholly inhibited by abnormalities or by immaturity, It is also something which is available as a resource in other cases too. We look with an objective eye on the compulsive behaviour of the neurotic or the tiresome behaviour of a very young child, thinking in terms of treatment or training. But we can sometimes look with something like the same eye on the behaviour of the normal and the mature. We have this resource and can sometimes use it; as a refuge, say, from the strains of involvement; or as an aid to policy; or simply out of intellectual curiosity. Being human, we cannot, in the normal case, do this for long, or altogether. If the strains of involvement, say, continue to be too great, then we have to do something else -- like severing a relationship. But what is above all interesting is the tension there is, in us, between the participant attitude and the objective attitude. One is tempted to say: between our humanity and our intelLigence. But to say this would be to distort both notions.

What I have called the participant reactive attitudes are essentially natural human reactions to the good or ill will or indifference of others towards us, as displayed in their attitudes and actions. The question we have to ask is: What effect would, or should, the acceptance of the truth of a general thesis of determinism have upon these reactive attitudes? More specifically, would, or should, the acceptance of the truth of the thesis lead to the decay or the repudiation of all such attitudes? Would, or should, it mean the end of gratitude, resentment, and forgiveness; of all reciprocated adult loves; of all the essentially personal antagonisms?

But how can I answer, or even pose, this question without knowing exactly what the thesis of determinism is? Well, there is one thing we do know; that if there is a coherent thesis of determinism, then there must be a sense of ‘determined’ such that, if that thesis is true, then all behaviour whatever is determined in that sense. Remembering this, we can consider at least what possibilities lie formally open; and then perhaps we shall see that the question can be answered without knowing exactly what the thesis of determinism is. We can considçr what possibilities lie open because we have already before us an account of the ways in which particular reactive attitudes, or reactive attitudes in general, may be, and, sometimes, we judge, should be, inhibited. Thus I considered earlier a group of considerations which tend to inhibit, and, we judge, should inhibit, resentment, in particular cases of an agent causing an injury, without inhibiting reactive attitudes in general towards that agent. Obviously this group of considerations cannot strictly bear upon our question; for that question concerns reactive attitudes in general. But resentment has a particular interest; so it is worth adding that it has never been daimed as a consequence of the truth of determinism that one or another of these considerations was operative in every case of an injury being caused by an agent; that it would follow from the truth of determinism that anyone who caused an injury either was quite simply ignorant of causing it or had acceptably overriding reasons for acquiescing reluctantly in causing it or. . ., etc. The prevalence of this happy state of affairs would not be a consequence of the reign of universal determinism, but of the reign of universal goodwill. We cannot, then, find here the possibility of an affirmative answer to our question, even for the particular case of resentment.

Next, I remarked that the participant attitude, and the personal reactive attitudes in general, tend to give place, and it is judged by the civilized should give place, to objective attitudes, just in so far as the agent is seen as excluded from ordinary adult human relationships by deep-rooted. psychological abnormality—or simply by being a child. But it cannot be a consequence of any thesis which is not itself self-contradictory that abnormality is the universal condition.

Now this dismissal might seem altogether too facile; and so, in a sense, it is. But whatever is too quickly dismissed in this dismissal is allowed for in the only possible form of affirmative answer that remains. We can sometimes, and in part, I have remarked, look on the normal (those we rate as ‘normal’) in the objective way in which we have learned to look on certain classified cases of abnormality. And our question reduces to this: could, or should, the acceptance of the determinist thesis lead us always to look on everyone exclusively in this way? For this is the only condition worth considering under which the acceptancc of determinism could lead to the decay or repudiation of participant reactive attitudes.

It does not seem to be self-contradictory to suppose that this might happen. So I suppose we must say that it is not absolutely inconceivable that it should happen. But I am strongly inclined to think that it is, for us as we are, practically inconceivable. The human commitment to participation in ordinary inter-personal relationships is, I think, too thoroughgoing and deeply rooted for us to take seriously the thought that a general theoretical conviction might so change our world that, in it, there were no longer any such things as inter-personal relationships as we normally understand them; and being involved in inter-personal relationships as we normally understand them precisely is being exposed to the range of reactive attitudes and feelings that is in question.

This, then, is a part of the reply to our question. A sustained objectivity of inter-personal attitude, and the human isolation which that would entail, does not seem to be something of which human beings would be capable, even if some general truth were a theoretical ground for it. But this is not all. There is a further point, implicit in the foregoing, which must be made explicit. Exceptionally, I have said, we can have direct dealings with human beings without any degree of personal involvement, treating them simply as creatures to be handled in our own interest, or our side’s, or society’s—or even theirs. In the extreme case of the mentally deranged, it is easy to see the connection between the possibility of a wholly objective attitude and the impossibility of what we understand by ordinary interpersonal relationships. Given this latter impossibility, no other civilized attitude is available than that of viewing the deranged person simply as something to be understood and controlled in the most desirable fashion. To view him as outside the reach of personal relationships is already, for the civilized, to view him in this way. For reasons of policy or self-protection we may have occasion, perhaps temporary, to adopt a fundamentally similar attitude to a ‘normal’ human being; to concentrate, that is, on understanding ‘how he works’, with a view to determining our policy accordingly, or to finding in that very understanding a relief from the strains of involvement. Now it is certainly true that in the case of the abnormal, though not in the case of the normal, our adoption of the objective attitude is a consequence of our viewing the agent as incapacitated in some or all respects for ordinary interpersonal relationships. He is thus incapacitated, perhaps, by the fact that his picture of reality is pure fantasy, that he does not, in a sense, live in the real world at all; or by the fact that his behaviour is, in part, an unrealistic acting out of unconscious purposes; or by the fact that he is an idiot, or a moral idiot. But there is something else which, because this is true, is equally certainly not true. And that is that there is a sense of ‘determined’ such that (1) if determinism is true, all behaviour is determined in this sense, and (2) determinism might be true, i.e. it is not inconsistent with the facts as we know them to suppose that all behaviour might be determined in this sense, and (3) our adoption of the objective attitude towards the abnormal is the result of a prior embracing of the belief that the behaviour, or the relevant stretch of behaviour, of the human being in question is determined in this sense. Neither in the case of the normal, then, nor in the case of the abnormal is it true that, when we adopt an objective attitude, we do so because we hold such a belief. So my answer has two parts. The first is that we cannot, as we are, seriously envisage ourselves adopting a thoroughgoing objectivity of attitude to others as a result of theoretical conviction of the truth of determinism; and the second is that when we do in fact adopt such an attitude in a particular case, our doing so is not the consequence of a theoretical conviction which might be expressed as ‘Determinism in this case’, but is a consequence of our abandoning, for different reasons in different cases, the ordinary inter-personal attitudes.

It might be said that all this leaves the real question unanswered, and that we cannot hope to answer it without knowing exactly what the thesis of determinism is. For the real question is not a question about what we actually do, or why we do it. It is not even a question about what we would in fact do if a certain theoretical conviction gained general acceptance. It is a question about what it would be rational to do if determinism were true, a question about the rational justification of ordinary inter-personal attitudes in general. To this I shall reply, first, that such a question could seem real only to one who had utterly failed to grasp the purport. of the preceding answer, the fact of our natural human commitment to ordinary inter-personal attitudes. This commitment is part of the general framework of human life, not something that can come up for review as particular cases can come up for review within this general framework. And I shall reply, second, that if we could imagine what we cannot have, viz, a choice in this matter, then we could choose rationally only in the light of an assessment of the gains and losses to human life, its enrichment or impoverishment; and the truth or falsity of a general thesis of determinism would not bear on the rationality of this choice.(4)

5. The point of this discussion of the reactive attitudes in their relation -- or lack of it—to the thesis of determinism was to bring us, if possible, nearer to a position of compromise in a more usual area of debate. We are not now to discuss reactive attitudes which are essentially those of offended parties or beneficiaries. We are to discuss reactive attitudes which are essentially not those, or only incidentally are those, of offended parties or beneficiaries, but are nevertheless, I shall claim, kindred attitudes to those I have discussed. I put resentment in the centre of the previous discussion. I shall put moral indignation—or, more weakly, moral disapprobation—in the centre of this one.

The reactive attitudes I have so far discussed are essentially reactions to the quality of others’ wills towards us, as manifested in their behaviour: to their good or ill will or indifference or lack of concern. Thus resentment, or what I have called resentment, is a reaction to injury or indifference. The reactive attitudes I have now to discuss might be described as the sympathetic or vicarious or impersonal or disinterested or generalized analogues of the reactive attitudes I have already discussed. They, are reactions to the qualities of others’ wills, not towards ourselves, but towards others. Because of this impersonal or vicarious character, we give them different names. Thus one who experiences the vicarious analogue of resentment is said to be indignant or disapproving, or morally indignant or disapproving. What we have here is, as it were, resentment on behalf of another, where one’s own interest and dignity are not involved; and it is this impersonal or vicarious character of the attitude, added to its others, which entitle it to the qualification ‘moral’. Both my description of, and my name for, these attitudes are, in one important respect, a little misleading. It is not that these attitudes are essentially vicarious—one can feel indignation on one’s own account—but that they are essentially capable of being vicarious. But I shall retain the name for the sake of its suggestiveness; and I hope that what is misleading about it will be corrected in what follows.

The personal reactive attitudes rest on, and reflect, an expectation of, and demand for, the manifestation of a certain degree of goodwill or regard on the part of other human beings towards ourselves; or at least on the expectation of, and demand for, an absence of the manifestation of active ill will or indifferent disregard. (What will, in particular cases, count as manifestations of good or ill will or disregard will vary in accordance with the particular relationship in which we stand to another human being.) The generalized or vicarious analogues of the personal reactive attitudes rest on, and reflect, exactly the same expectation or demand in a generalized form; they rest on, or reflect, that is, the demand for the manifestation of a reasonable degree of goodwill or regard, on the part of others, not simply towards oneself, but towards all those on whose behalf moral indignation may be felt, i.e., as we now think, towards all men. The generalized and non-generalized forms of demand, and the vicarious and personal reactive attitudes which rest upon, and reflect, them are connected not merely logically. They are connected humanly; and not merely with each other. They are connected also with yet another set of attitudes which I must mention now in order to complete the picture. I have considered from two points of view the demands we make on others and our reactions to their possibly injurious actions. These were the points of view of one whose interest was directly involved (who suffers, say, the injury) and of others whose interest was not directly involved (who do not themselves suffer the injury). Thus I have

spoken of personal reactive attitudes in the first connection and of their vicarious analogues in the second. But the picture is not cornplete unless we consider also the correlates of these attitudes on the part of those on whom the demands are made, on the part of the agents. Just as there are personal. and vicarious reactive attitudes associated with demands on others for oneself and demands on others for others, so there are self-reactive attitudes associated with demands on oneself for others. And here we have to mention such phenomena as feeling bound or obliged (the ‘sense of obligation’); feeling compunction; feeling guilty or remorseful or at least responsible; and the more complicated phenomenon of shame.

All these three types of attitude are humanly connected. One who manifested the personal reactive attitudes in a high degree but showed no inclination at all to their vicarious analogues would appear as an abnormal case of moral egocentricity, as a kind of moral solipsist. Let him be supposed fully to acknowledge the claims to regard that others had on him, to be susceptible of the whole range of self-reactive attitudes. He would then see himself as unique both as one (the one) who had a general claim on human regard and as one (the one) on whom human beings in general had such a claim. This would be a kind of moral solipsism. But it is barely more than a conceptual possibility; if it is that. In general, though within varying limits, we demand. of others for others, as well as of ourselves for others, something of the regard which we demand of others for ourselves. Can we imagine, besides that of the moral solipsist, any other case of one or two of these three types of attitude being fully developed, but quite unaccompanied by any trace, however slight, of the remaining two or one? If we can, then we imagine something far below or far above the level of our common humanity—a moral idiot or a saint. For all these types of attitude alike have common roots in our human nature and our membership of human communities.

Now, as of the personal reactive attitudes, so of their vicarious analogues, we must ask in what ways, and by what considerations, they tend to be inhibited. Both types of attitude involve, or express, a certain sort of demand for inter-personal regard. The fact of injury constitutes a prima fade appearance of this demand’s being flouted or unfulfilled. We saw, in the case of resentment, how one class of considerations may show this appearance to be mere appearance, and hence inhibit resentment, without inhibiting, or displacing, the sort of demand of which resentment can be an expression, without in any way tending to make us suspend our ordinary interpersonal attitudes to the agent. Considerations of this class operate in just the same way, for just the same reasons, in connection with moral disapprobation or indignation; they inhibit indignation without in any way inhibiting the sort of demand on the agent of which indignation can be an expression, the range of attitudes towards him to which it belongs. But in this connection we may express the facts with a new emphasis. We may say, stressing the moral, the generalized aspect of the demand: considerations of this group have no tendency to make us see the agent as other than a morally responsible agent; they simply make us see the- injury as one for which he was not morally responsible. The offering and acceptance of such exculpatory pleas as are here in question in no way detracts in our eyes from the agent’s status as a term of moral relationships. On the contrary, since things go wrong and situations are complicated, it is an essential part of the life of such relationships.

But suppose we see the agent in a different light: as one whose picture of the world is an insane delusion; or as one whose behaviour, or a part of whose behaviour, is unintelligible to us, perhaps even to him, in terms of conscious purposes, and intelligible only in terms of unconscious purposes; or even, perhaps, as one wholly impervious to the self-reactive attitudes I spoke of, wholly lacking, as we say, in moral sense. Seeing an agent in such a light as this tends, I said, to inhibit resentment in a wholly different way. It tends to inhibit resentment because it tends to inhibit ordinary interpersonal attitudes in general, and the kind of demand and expectation which those attitudes involve; and tends to promote instead the purely objective view of the agent as one posing problems simply of intellectual understanding, management, treatment, and control. Again the parallel holds for those generalized or moral attitudes towards the agent which we are now concerned with. The same abnormal light which shows the agent to us as one in respect of whom the personal attitudes, the personal demand, are to be suspended, shows him to us also as one in respect of whom the impersonal.attitudes, the generalized demand, are to be suspended. Only, abstracting now from direct personal interest, we may express the facts with a new emphasis. We may say: to the extent to which the agent is seen in this light, he is not seen as one on whom demands and expectations lie in that particular way in which we think of them as lying when we speak of moral obligation; he is not, to that extent, seen as a morally responsible agent, as a term of moral relationships, as a member of the moral community.

I remarked also that the suspension of ordinary inter-personal attitudes and the cultivation of a purely objective view is sometimes possible even when we have no such reasons for it as I have just mentioned. Is this possible also in the case of the moral reactive attitudes? I think so; and perhaps it is easier. But the motives for a total suspension of moral reactive attitudes are fewer, and perhaps weaker: fewer, because only where there is antecedent personal involvement can there be the motive of seeking refuge from the strains of such involvement; perhaps weaker, because the tension between objectivity of view and the moral reactive attitudes is perhaps less than the tension between objectivity of view and the personal reactive attitudes, so that we can in the case of the moral reactive attitudes more easily secure the speculative or political gains of objectivity of view by a kind of setting on one side, rather than a total suspension, of those attitudes.

These last remarks are uncertain; but also, for the present purpose, unimportant. What concerns us now is to inquire, as previously in connection with the personal reactive attitudes, what relevance any general thesis of determinism might have to their vicarious analogues. The answers once more are parallel; though I shall take them in a slightly different order. First, we must note, as before, that when the suspension of such an attitude or such attitudes occurs in a particular case, it is never the consequence of the belief that the piece of behaviour in question was determined in a sense such that all behaviour might be, and, if determinism is true, all behaviour is, determined in that sense. For it is not a consequence of any general thesis of determinism which might be true that nobody knows what he’s doing or that everybody’s behaviour is unintelligible in terms of conscious purposes or that everybody lives in a world of delusion or that nobody has a moral sense, i.e. is susceptible of self-reactive attitudes, etc. In fact no such sense of ‘determined’ as would be required for a general thesis of determinism is ever relevant to our actual suspensions of moral reactive attitudes. Second, suppose it granted, as I have already argued, that we cannot take seriously the thought that theoretical conviction of such a general thesis would lead to the total decay of the personal reactive attitudes. Can we then take seriously the thought that such a conviction—a conviction, after all, that many have held or said they held—would nevertheless lead to the total decay or repudiation of the vicarious analogues of these attitudes? I think that the change in our social world which would leave us exposed to the personal reactive attitudes but not at all to their vicarious analogues, the generalization of abnormal egocentricity which this would entail, is perhaps even harder for us to envisage as a real possibility than the decay of both kinds of attitude together. Though there are some necessary and some contingent differences between the ways and cases in which these two kinds of attitudes operate or are inhibited in their operation, yet, as general human capacities or pronenesses, they stand or lapse together. Finally, to the further question whether it would not be rational, given a general theoretical conviction of the truth of determinism, so to change our world that in it all these attitudes were wholly suspended, I must answer, as before, that one who presses this question has wholly failed to grasp the import of the preceding answer, the nature of the human commitment that is here involved: it is useless to ask whether it would not be rational for us to do what it is not in our nature to (be able to) do. To this I must add, as before, that if there were, say, for a moment open to us the possibility of such a god-like choice, the rationality of making or refusing it would be determined by quite other considerations than the truth or falsity of the general theoretical doctrine in question. The latter would be simply irrelevant; and this becomes ironically clear when we remember that for those convinced that the truth of determinism nevertheless really would make the one choice rational, there has always been the insuperable difficulty of explaining in intelligible terms how its falsity would make the opposite choice rational.

I am aware that in presenting the argument as I have done, neglecting the ever-interesting varieties of case, I have presented nothing more than a schema, using sometimes a crude opposition of phrase where we have a great intricacy of phenomena. In particular the simple opposition of objective attitudes on the one hand and the various contrasted attitudes which I have opposed to them must seem as grossly crude as it is central. Let me pause to mitigate this crudity a little, and also to strengthen one of my central contentions, by mentioning some things which straddle these contrasted kinds of attitude. Thus parents and others concerned with the care and upbringing of young children cannot have to their charges either kind of attitude in a pure or unqualified form. They are dealing with creatures who are potentially and increasingly capable both of holding, and being objects of, the full range of human and moral attitudes, but are not yet truly capable of either. The treatment of such creatures must therefore represent a kind of compromise, constantly shifting in one direction, between objectivity of attitude and developed human attitudes. Rehearsals insensibly modulate towards true performances. The punishment of a child is both like and unlike the punishment of an adult. Suppose we try to relate this progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being, as an object of non-objective attitudes, to that sense of ‘determined’ in which, if determinism is a possibly true thesis, all behaviour may be determined, and in which, if it is a true~ thesis, all behaviour is determined. What bearing could such a sense of ‘determined’ have upon the progressive modification of attitudes towards the child? Would it not be grotesque to think of the development of the child as a progressive or patchy emergence from an area in which its behaviour is in this sense determined into an area in which it isn’t? Whatever sense of ‘determined’ is required for stating the thesis of determinism, it can scarcely be such as to allow of compromise, border-line-style answers to the question, ‘Is this bit of behaviour determined or isn’t it?’ But in this matter of young children, it is essentially a border-line, penumbral area that we move in. Again, consider—a very different matter—the strain in the attitude of a psycho-analyst to his patient. His objectivity of attitude, his suspension of ordinary moral reactive attitudes, is profoundly modified by the fact that the aim of the enterprise is to make such suspension unnecessary or less necessary. Here we may and do naturally speak of restoring the agent’s freedom. But here the restoring of freedom means bringing it about that the agent’s behaviour shall be intelligible in terms of conscious purposes rather than in terms only of unconscious purposes. This is the object of the enterprise; and it is in so far as this object is attained that the suspension, or half-suspension, of ordinary moral attitudes is deemed no longer necessary or appropriate. And in this we see once again the irrelevance of that concept of ‘being determined’ which must be the central concept of determinism. For we cannot both agree that this object is attainable and that its attainment has this consequence and yet hold (1) that neurotic behaviour is determined in a sense in which, it may be, all behaviour is determined, and (2) that it is because neurotic behaviour is determined in this sense that objective attitudes are deemed appropriate to neurotic behaviour. Not, at least, without accusing ourselves of incoherence in our attitude to psycho-analytic treatment.

6. And now we can try to fill in the lacuna which the pessimist finds in the optimist’s account of the concept of moral responsibility, and of the bases of moral condemnation and punishment; and to fill it in from the facts as we know them. For, as I have already remarked, when the pessimist himself seeks to fill it in, he rushes beyond the facts as we know them and proclaims that it cannot be filled in at all unless determinism is false.

Yet a partial sense of the facts as we know them is certainly present to the pessimist’s mind. When his opponent, the optimist, undertakes to show that the truth of determinism would not shake the foundations of the concept of moral responsibility and of the practices of moral condemnation and punishment, he typically refers, in a more or less elaborated way, to the efficacy of these practices in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. These practices are represented solely as instruments of policy, as methods of individual treatment and social control. The pessimist recoils from this picture; and in his recoil there is, typically, an element of emotional shock. He is apt to say, among much else, that the humanity of the offender himself is offended by this picture of his condemnation and punishment.

The reasons for this recoil—the explanation of the sense of an emotional, as well as a conceptual, shock—we have already before us. The picture painted by the optimists is painted in a style appropriate to a situation envisaged as wholly dominated by objectivity of attitude,The only operative notions invoked in this picture are such as those of policy, treatment, control. But a thoroughgoing objectivity of attitude, excluding as it does the moral reactive attitudes, excludes at the same time essential elements in the concepts of moral condemnation and moral responsibility. This is the reason for the conceptual shock. The deeper emotional shock is a reaction, not simply to an inadequate conceptual analysis, but to the suggestion of a change in our world. I have remarked that it is possible to cultivate an exclusive objectivity of attitude in some cases, and for some reasons, where the object of the attitude is not set aside from developed inter-personal and moral attitudes by immaturity or abnormality. And the suggestion which seems to be contained in the optimist’s account is that such an attitude should be universally adopted to all offenders. This is shocking enough in the pessimist’s eyes. But, sharpened by shock, his eyes see further. It would be hard to make this division in our natures. If to all offenders, then to all mankind. Moreover, to whom could this recommendation be, in any real sense, addressed? Only to the powerful, the authorities. So abysses seem to open.(5)

But we will confine our attention to the case of the offenders. The concepts we are concerned with are those of responsibility and guilt, qualified as ‘moral’, on the one hand—together with that of membership of a moral community; of demand, indignation, disapprobation and condemnation, qualified as ‘moral’, on the other hand—together with that of punishment. Indignation, disapprobation, like resentment, tend to inhibit or at least to limit our goodwill towards the object of these attitudes, tend to promote an at least partial and temporary withdrawal of goodwill; they do so in proportion as they are strong; and their strength is in general proportioned to what is felt to be the magnitude of the injury and to the degree to which the agent’s will is identified with, or indifferent to, it. (These, of course, are not contingent connections.) But these attitudes of disapprobation and indignation are precisely the correlates of the moral demand in the case where the demand is felt to be disregarded. The making of the demand is the proneness to such attitudes. The holding of them does not, as the holding of objective attitudes does, involve as a part of itself viewing their object other than as a member of the moral community. The partial withdrawal of goodwill which these attitudes entail, the modification they entail of the general demand that another should, if possible, be spared suffering, is, rather, the consequence of continuing to view him as a member of the moral community; only as one who has offended against its demands. So the preparedness to acquiesce in that infliction of suffering on the offender which is an essential part of punishment is all of a piece with this whole range of attitudes of which I have been speaking. It is not only moral reactive attitudes towards the offender which are in question here. We must mention also the self-reactive attitudes of offenders themselves. Just as the other-reactive attitudes are associated with a readiness to acquiesce in the infliction of suffering on an offender, within the ‘institution’ of punishment, so the self-reactive attitudes are associated with a readiness on the part of the offender to acquiesce in such infliction without developing the reactions (e.g. of resentment) which he would normally develop to the infliction of injury upon him; i.e. with a readiness, as we say, to accept punishment(6) as ‘his due’ or as ‘just’.

l am not in the least suggesting that these readinesses to acquiesce, either on the part of the offender himself or on the part of others, are always or commonly accompanied or preceded by indignant boilings or remorseful pangs; only that we have here a continuum of attitudes and feelings to which these readinesses to acquiesce themselves belong. Nor am I in the least suggesting that it belongs to this continuum of attitudes that we should be ready to acquiesce in the infliction of injury on offenders in a fashion which we saw to be quite indiscriminate or in accordance with procedures which we knew to be wholly useless. On the contrary, savage or civilized, we have some belief in the utility of practices of condemnation and punishment. But the social utility of these practices, on which the optimist lays such exclusive stress, is not what is now in question. What is in question is the pessimist’s justified sense that to speak in terms of social utility alone is to leave out something vital in our conception of these practices. The vital thing can be restored by attending to that complicated web of attitudes and feelings which form an essential part of the moral life as we know it, and which are quite opposed wobjectivity of attitude. Only by attending to this range of attitudes can we recover from the facts as we know them a sense of what we mean, i.e. of all we mean, when, speaking the language of morals, we speak of desert, responsibility, guilt, condemnation, and justice. But we do recover it from the facts as we know them. We do not have to go beyond them. Because the optimist neglects or misconstrues these attitudes, the pessimist rightly claims to find a lacuna in his account. We can fill the lacuna for him. But in return we must demand of the pessimist a surrender of his metaphysics.

Optimist and pessimist misconstrue the facts in very different styles. But in a profound sense there is something in common to their misunderstandings. Both seek, in different ways, to over-intellectualize the facts. Inside the general structure or web of human attitudes and feelings Of which I have been speaking, there is endless room for modification, redirection, criticism, and justification. But questions of justification are internal to the structure or relate to modifications internal to it. The existence of the general framework of attitudes itself is something we are given with the fact of human society. As a whole, it neither calls for, nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification. Pessimist and optimist alike show themselves, in different ways, unable to accept this.(7) The optimist’s style of over-intellectualizing the facts is that of a characteristically incomplete empiricism, a one-eyed utilitarianism. He seeks to find an adequate basis for certain social practices in calculated consequences, and loses sight (perhaps wishes to lose sight) of the human attitudes of which these practices are, in part, the expression. The pessimist does not lose sight of these attitudes, but is unable to accept the fact that it is just these attitudes themselves which fill the gap in the optimist’s account. Because of this, he thinks the gap can be filled only if some general metaphysical proposition is repeatedly verified, verified in all cases where it is appropriate to attribute moral responsibility. This proposition he finds it as difficult to state coherently and with intelligible relevance as its determinist contradictory. Even when a formula has been found (‘contra-causal freedom’ or something of the kind) there still seems to remain a gap between its applicability in particular cases and its supposed moral consequences. Sometimes he plugs this gap with an intuition of fittingness—a pitiful intellectualist trinket for a philosopher to wear as a charm against the recognition of his own humanity.

Even the moral sceptic is not immune from his own form of the wish to over-intellectualize such notions as those of moral responsibility, guilt, and blame. He sees that the optimist’s account is inadequate and the pessimist’s libertarian alternative inane; and finds no resource except to declare that the notions in question are inherently confused, that ‘blame is metaphysical’. But the metaphysics was in the eye of the metaphysician. It is a pity that talk of the moral sentiments has fallen out of favour. The phrase would be quite a good name for that network of human attitudes in acknowledging the character and place of which we find, I suggest, the only possibility of reconciling these disputants to each other and the facts.

There are, at present, factors which add, in a slightly paradoxical way, to the difficulty of making this acknowledgement. These human attitudes themselves, in their development and in the variety of their manifestations, have to an increasing extent become objects of study in the social and psychological sciences; and this growth of human self-consciousness, which we might expect to reduce the difficulty of acceptance, in fact increases it in several ways. One factor of comparatively minor importance is an increased historical and anthropological awareness of the great variety of forms which these human attitudes may take at different times and in different cultures. This makes one rightly chary of claiming as essential features of the concept of morality in general, forms of these attitudes which may have a local and temporary prominence. No doubt to some extent my own descriptions of human attitudes have reflected local and temporary features of our. own culture. But an awareness of variety of forms should not prevent us from acknowledging also that in the absence of any forms of these attitudes it is doubtful whether we should have anything that we could find intelligible as a system of human relationships, as human society. A quite different (actor of greater importance is that psychological studies have made us rightly mistrustful of many particular manifestations of the attitudes I have spoken of. They are a prime realm of self-deception, of the ambiguous and the shady, of guilt-transference, unconscious sadism and the rest. But it is an exaggerated horror, itself suspect, which would make us unable to acknowledge the facts because of the seamy side of the facts. Finally, perhaps the most important factor of all is the prestige of these theoretical studies themselves. That prestige is great, and is apt to make us forget that in philosophy, though it also is a theoretical study, we have to take account of the facts in all their bearings; we are not to suppose that we are required, or permitted, as philosophers, to regard ourselves, as human beings, as detached from the attitudes which, as scientists, we study with detachment. This is in no way to deny the possibility and desirability of redirection and modification of our human amtudes in the light of these studies. But we may reasonably think it unlikely that our progressively greater understanding of certain aspects of ourselves will lead to the total disappearance of those aspects. Perhaps it is not inconceivable that it should; and perhaps, then, the dreams of some philosophers will be realized.

If we sufficiently, that is radically, modify the view of the optimist, his view is the right one. It is far from wrong to emphasize the efficacy of all those practices which express or manifest our moral attitudes, in regulating behaviour in ways considered desirable; or to add that when certain of our beliefs about the efficacy of some of these practices turn out to be false, then we may have good reason for dropping or modifying those practices. What is wrong is to forget that these practices, and their reception, the reactions to them, really are expressions of our moral attitudes and not merely devices we calculatingly employ for regulative purposes. Our practices do not merely exploit our natures, they express them. Indeed the very understanding of the kind of efficacy these expressions of our amtudes have turns on our remembering this. When we do remember this, and modify the optimist’s position accordingly, we simultaneously correct its conceptual deficiencies and ward off the dangers it seems to entail, without recourse to the obscure and panicky metaphysics of libertarianism.

EXTRAS

Determinism: The view that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws. Since determinists believe that all events, including human actions, are predetermined, determinism is typically thought to be incompatible with free will.

Fatalism: The belief that "what will be will be," since all past, present, and future events have already been predetermined by God or another all-powerful force. In religion, this view may be called predestination; it holds that whether our souls go to heaven or hell is determined before we are born and is independent of our choices.

Free will: The theory that human beings have freedom of choice or self-determination; that is, given a situation, a person could have done other than what he did. Philosophers have argued that free will is incompatible with determinism.

Indeterminism: The view that there are events that do not have any cause; many proponents of free will believe that acts of choice are capable of not being determined by any physiological or psychological cause.

Theological fatalism is an attempt to demonstrate a logical contradiction between an omniscient God and free will, where free will is defined as the ability to choose between alternatives. In this it is similar in purpose to the conundrum "Can an omnipotent God make a rock so heavy that even he is not able to lift it?"

Theological fatalism’s premises are stated as follows: God is omniscient. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in an event (mow the lawn), then you must invariably engage in that event (mowing the lawn).

Therefore, free-will is not possible, since you have no alternative except to engage in the event (mow the lawn). In the event that you do not fulfill event, then God is not omniscient. Alternatively, if you engage in event, then you don't have free will, on account of your inability to choose an alternative.

An opposing argument can state that God is omniscient. Since God is omniscient, He is also infallible. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in an event, then you will freely choose this based on your free will, not out of obligation or lack of choice about the event. You still have free will to engage in the event; God merely knows your choice before you make it. You are not obliged to make choice 'A' (mowing the lawn) any more than choice 'B' (playing tennis). If you were going to change your mind, God would have seen that also, so you still have full free will in all matters. Also, you will still make the same choices (with free will), even if God chose to not see the future. God’s seeing or not seeing the future does not alter your free will.

Passive foreknowledge, if it were kept hidden, would not invalidate free will in any logical or rational way. The individual choosing event 'A' would be making the same choices regardless of whether or not God knew the choices beforehand. God knowing or not knowing the future (passively) would not alter the free will of individuals at all. Free will would only be destroyed if God made His knowledge public in regard to the freewill choice of individuals; this would alter future free will and make it an obligation. A simple illustration is a psychic person foreseeing someone on the other side of the world tripping and breaking his leg when he runs to catch a bus. The psychic would not be altering reality by foreseeing this event, as this event would still happen regardless of whether someone had seen it or not. The same applies to God's omniscience: as long as it is passive and not interfering with reality or another's knowledge of it, then it is not contravening the free will of humans.

However, if God created all that is, then that poses a problem for any passive knowledge on God's part. An understanding of omniscience must be joined with an understanding of God's omnipresence in time. If God knows all events—past, future, and present—then He would know all events and decisions an individual would make, though from the individual’s perspective those events and decisions have not yet occurred. This might imply a nullification of free will for any individual, although no mechanism for God's apparent foreknowledge restraining the freedom to act is posited by the principle of theological fatalism. Since, according the Christian theology, God is atemporal (existing outside of time), God knows from creation the entire course of one's life and even whether or not that individual will accept His divine authority. With these preconditions, only a starkly fatalistic theological position seems imaginable to some.

To go one step further, here are some other implications: there is a vast difference between Predestination, Fatalism and Chance (or Fortune).

Fatalists teach that there is a blind, impersonal force, over which no one has control—not even God—and that events are swept along by this blind, purposeless power. This is Fatalism.

Chance (or Fortune) is a capricious force that supposedly causes things to happen “luckily,” without any control or direction by God. In a world ruled by Chance, God can foresee what will happen, but that is all. Everything depends on mere luck. And if the advocate of Chance is asked why or how things come to pass, he has no reply except to say that "it just happened."

Predestination, the doctrine of the Bible, says that God has a purpose and He is working all things out according to His own will and purpose (Ephesians 1:11; Daniel 4:35; Isaiah 14:24; and 46:10). Predestination teaches that God neither does nor permits anything except what serves His purpose (Psalm 33:11). This means that GOD IS the SOVEREIGN of the world, the One who does all things as He wills.

Those who blindly believe "whatever will be, will be" are as wrong as the advocates of chance. It is true that events are certain, but only so because of the sovereign God who fulfills His own decrees.

Serious students of the Bible do not believe that things “just happen." They understand that a wise, holy, good and sovereign God has control of every detail of life (Matthew 10:29-30). The man who does not really want God to have this control, or who despises the truth of God’s sovereignty, is the person who does not love God and does not want God in his life. He wants his own way. He, like the devils of old, would say, "Leave us alone" (Mark 1:24). But not so; God is sovereign, and He cannot deny Himself.

Freedom and limitations

Freedom is the condition of being free and the power to act or speak or think without restraint. What does freedom mean to me? I can't help but be thankful every morning that I wake up; I am a free woman. I pray for the men and women that go to the line every day to give us that freedom.
Freedom comes in many different forms such as social, economic, physical and political. There are limitations to every type of freedom because you have the ability to abuse these freedoms, and this can affect others. No other democratic society in the world permits social or personal freedom to the degree of the United States of America. The freedom of expression is given to us to express our feelings, yet we still take this freedom for granted by publicly offending others by obscenity and racism. It is sad, but you see it every day.
Economic freedom is very important to every day life. You have the ability to enlarge your economic freedom by the amount of money that you make. The amount of a person's income depends on how constrained a person is in pursuing their own interests. This is a freedom, but can also be a limitation if income is limited. I find that it takes money to further education and it takes further education to make money. As Milton Friedman explained: Freedom is invisible. Political freedom cannot long prevail where economic freedom is threatened.
I have to admit that physical freedom is a lenient area for the United States. You have the choice to wear what ever you want, as long as you are not being obscene. Some parts of the United States allow you to be totally free, and go naked. The limitation to physical freedom could be articles of clothing that you may or may not be able to wear to work or school. I believe that some people can be very offensive in what they wear. Clothing can also be offending, racial, sexual, or just profane. This again is sad that even though we have the choice, some cannot make he... [continues]

Determinism is the belief that all things, including human behavior, are casually determined in a manner that they could not be otherwise. Indeterminism (free will) is the view that some things, possibly human will and behavior, are exempt from casual determination. Though this problem raises many issues in itself, it also sparks many questions and arguments concerning other topics, such as religion and morality.
I want you put Free Will verses Determinism in search and read a few of the site essays to give you an idea of what a conundrum you are about to enter. It is a wonderful opening of the human mind so enjoy the ride.
Determinism is defined as the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Free will is defined as the power or ability of agents to to act otherwise than they in fact do.

The Contender should explain how these two opposites can settle down together peacefully.
In order to decide whether or not free will and determinism can put aside their differences and be friends, we have to figure out just what the heck they ARE. Every person who's started a similar topic has put forth their own definitions, and those definitions always fall apart. Why? Because they only APPROXIMATE what free will and determinism are.

Determinism, by the definition he gave, is false right off the bat. There are things in nature that we can not compute because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We do not live in a clockwork universe. The definition of free will doesn't fare any better: I don't know about you, but I've never been able to act in a way that I didn't act.

What if we turned the clocks back and let the universe run again? Would it turn out the same as it is now? If A lead to B, then if we go back in time right before A, would B still follow? This is how many people frame the debate. You must ask yourself, though, what exactly does it mean to say "A would inevitably lead to B"?

We can look at it from a physics standpoint or from a cognitive standpoint, and these two standpoints do not get along. From a physics standpoint, the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle prevents just about anything from being inevitable. For most events that we're interested in, however, the HUP only presents an infinitesimally small chance that things might not have gone the way they did. This may not be true if you are interested in exactly which way a particle of radiation travels from a decaying atom, but unless you're a cat and your owner is named Schr�dinger, you probably don't. In day to day life, we treat "infinitesimally small" as being "zero". Nobody will ever get out insurance in the case that the particles of their flower pot happen to spontaneously form into the shape of a working atomic bomb, even though physically speaking there is a non-zero probability of that happening. From a physics standpoint, saying "A would inevitably lead to B" means "the probability of A leading to B is so high, that it is not even worth considering the possibility that it wouldn't".

From a cognitive standpoint, saying that "A could have lead to C instead of B" means that, in your mental framework of the world, it is consistent for A to have lead to C. You could, for example, say that "Tom could have taken the train instead of the bus". You could not say "Tom could have grown wings and flown instead of taking the bus", because that contradicts our model of how people should behave. From a cognitive standpoint, saying "A would inevitably lead to B" means that "It would contradict the nature of A to do anything except lead to B".

Going back to physics, though, the difference between Tom taking the train or the bus depends on exactly how signals travel within his brain. The brain is largely a black box, but we can imagine that the HUP could allow signals to travel in different manners. Hence Tom could have taken the train or the bus. However, the HUP also allows for that possibility of Tom sprouting wings and flying to work. We can't even say which is more likely, as we only have a vague understanding of how the brain works.

The peace between free will and determinism can be found in the distinction between the physics standpoint and the cognitive standpoint. If the actions of a human being are deterministic, then that means it is possible to predict, with near 100% certainty, what a given person will do in a given situation. From a physics standpoint, this is true. If you knew the exact state of the brain, you could work out all the equations, figure out what signals would go where, and find the most probable course of action the person would take. You may die of old age before you finished calculating, but theoretically you COULD.

From a cognitive standpoint, however, we will never be able to have enough information, or enough time, to process all of the physical interactions going on in the brain during any decision. What's more, any instrument that could even TELL us that exact state of the brain would have to affect the brain itself, by the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. Therefore, we can NOT predict with near certainty what an arbitrary person would do in an arbitrary situation.

In conclusion, the difference between free will and determinism is all in how you frame it.
As it seems from Nail_Bat's argument we are arguing about the definition of "Determinism" and "Free Will".

Let's start with several formal definitions of "Determinism":

"The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (dictionary.com)

"In philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes that preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have acted otherwise. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible."
(britannica.com)

"A theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws"
(merriam-webster.com)

It is clear to see that the common denominator of all three definitions is that every state of affairs is the inevitable consequence of some previous antecedent states of affairs. It does mean that we live in a clockwork world. You ask – "What if we turned the clocks back and let the universe run again? Would it turn out the same as it is now?" A determinist will answer your questions and say – if we could turn the clocks back and let the universe run again it will turn out the same way as it now.

Next, we should consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If we accept it as it was understood by Heisenberg, we must accept uncertainty as a property of the world itself. This contradicts determinism (inherently by its definition), and as expected, its detractors who believe in underlying determinism (the Copenhagen interpretation), claim that there is no fundamental reality the quantum state describes, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is; only what the result of observations might be.

It has to be said clearly – any claim for uncertainty in the world itself contradicts determinism, as nothing is inevitable. Even saying that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle presents only an infinitesimally small chance that things would not happen as they should (in the strong sense of the word), approves the existence of uncertainty as a property of the world itself, and contradicts determinism.

…

Regarding free will we'll also consider some formal definitions:

"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
(thefreedictionary.com)

"The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."
(dictionary.com)

"Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"
(merriam-webster.com)

"In humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints."
(britannica.com)

I'll put in these words: any claim for free will must approve that humans have a high metaphysical freedom that allows them to choose between alternatives - the power or ability of agents to act otherwise than they in fact do. You say - "I don't know about you, but I've never been able to act in a way that I didn't act" – however, if you couldn't choose to act otherwise than the way you've acted, in what terms can we say that your decision was "free"?

…

The main problem with your cognitive-physical peace is that it relies on human abilities to perceive and understand the real world and not concern with the world itself. You describe the cognitive standpoint as a practical standpoint, saying "we will never be able to have enough information, or enough time, to process all of the physical interactions going on in the brain during any decision", while doctrines like determinism and free will claiming for the existence of some property (causativeness in determinism and metaphysical freedom in free will) in an objective reality, independent of humans subjective perception. Determinism and free will may turn out wrong if causativeness or metaphysical freedom are only illusions.

You take a skeptic standpoint and say that we as humans will never be able to say if the world is deterministic or not , however the fact that we can't decide which doctrine is true and which is false doesn't mean that they're both true (or both false). Furthermore, let me remind you that I'm not arguing whether there is a way to proof one of those two doctrines or not, but that they're completely contradict each other by definition and cannot be both true.

I'll suggest that in your next arguments, you'll explain how these two opposites can settle down without distorting their definitions. What is the significance of saying that determinism and free will do settle down, if determinism is not deterministic and the free will is not free?
Report this Argument
[pic]

Con

My opponent has asked me to explain how free will and determinism can settle down without distorting their definitions. I however do not think the definitions of either term are clear cut. If we define determinism as "Bob would have inevitably taken the bus" and free will as "Bob might have taken the train instead" (and both are in accordance with the definitions my opponent posted in the first round), then we need to really take a close look at what it means to say "X might have been Y". This was the theme of my last argument; I broke this phrase down and gave two alternate interpretations of what it actually means, each with different implications for free will and determinism.

Free will is an incredibly complicated concept, and any brief definition is only going to approximate what we intuitively understand free will to be (and each of us may have a very different idea of what it is). All of the definitions center on the concept of an unrestrained choice, which can not be influenced by any outside forces. However, in order to make a choice in the first place, the agent must be informed. Even if the agent only allows objective information into its mind, the choices it makes will at least be influenced by what observations the agent has made. What's more, we are limited in our choices to what we are aware of and what we are physically capable of. I challenge my opponent to describe a hypothetical scenario in which an agent makes a completely free choice according to the criteria of the definitions he gave.

However, I believe that when people use the term "free will", they don't mean something as rigorous as the above definitions. My opponent stated: "The main problem with your cognitive-physical peace is that it relies on human abilities to perceive and understand the real world and not concern with the world itself." Indeed it does, as my argument is that the term "free will" was born out of our inability to determine the behavior of other people.

Human behavior has two properties that make it unique among the behavior of any other entity. First, it is non-consistent. By contrast, most other living things tend to act through simple, predictable "stimulus response" behaviors. This trend is broken by some of the more complex animals, such as dolphins or apes, but not to the degree that we see in humans. Second, human behavior is non-random. People will usually act in ways consistent with their habits, personality, and abilities.

These two contradictory qualities, I believe, gave rise to the concept of "free will". It suggested the substance of a choice was a non-physical, self contained black box. It would take in information through observations, and produce actions, but the nature of this process was inherently unknowable. The ideas of a soul and dualistic theories of the mind are ways that people have developed to try and understand what that black box really is.

In this view, "Free will" is a concept we invented to describe the unique behavior of people. "Deterministic" is also a concept we invented to describe processes which can be predicted. Depending on how the issue is framed, human behavior may be both free and deterministic, or neither free nor deterministic. I realize my opponent would like for there to be an objective definition of both terms that can be shown to be contradictory. Under the definitions he gave, however, I pointed out that when you take a close look at the implications of the terms, you run into some unavoidable ambiguity that can not be resolved unless we choose to frame the issue in one way or another.
Report this Argument
[pic]
[pic]

Pro

I probably haven't emphasized myself enough, as it seems that my opponent keeps confusing between the existence of free will as an illusion and the existence of free will as a real property of a living creature. It is important to make it clear and understandable – both theories accept the truth of the sensation of free will. This is something that cannot be denied as we all feel it. However, the question is if free will truly exists or is it just a false sensation we feel?

My opponent spoke of two properties of human beings – acting in a non-consistent, although non-random way - and said that those two contradictory qualities gave rise to the concept of "free will". However it remains unclear from he's explanation whether he talks of free will as a real true thing or just as a false sensation. It is understandable that we may never be able to proof one or another, but clearly, it cannot be both true and false at the same time.

So, please, Nail_Bat, tell us, do you accept that free will cannot be at the same time both true and false? According to your explanation is free will only a sensation or is it a true property of human beings?

Next, I'd like to answer my opponent challenge:
"I challenge my opponent to describe a hypothetical scenario in which an agent makes a completely free choice according to the criteria of the definitions he gave."

A man is asked to choose a color from a list of ten colors. He chose blue. Why?

The determinist will say that he actually had no choice – the fact that he chose this specific color was pre-determined and could be theoretically explained. He will say that there was a chain of causes that led to this specific result, even if we'll never be able to discover them. The fact that we can't reveal them is irrelevant – he only claims for their existence.

On the opposite side, the free will supporter will say that due to his metaphysical freedom, the man could choose any color he wanted. Even if he had influences, tendencies, habits or whatever – the man himself is the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his action.

The main difference between those two doctrines is in their answer to the question "Why the man chose that specific color?" – Causativeness for the determinist and metaphysical freedom, making the man the "cause sui" (the cause of itself), for the free will supporter. Both answers can't be true. If we say that the only reason the man chose that specific color is the man himself, we can't say that there was a chain of causes that led him inevitably to choose it. If we say the there was a chain of causes that led him inevitable to choose it, how can we say that he was the originating cause of his choice?

Anyway, as Nail_Bat claimed that my definitions led him to some unavoidable ambiguity that can not be resolved unless we choose to frame the issue in one way or another; I'll try to explain how each definition can make it unequivocal.

The definition I've used for determinism was "the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." According to this definition free will is only a sensation we feel, produced by specific processes happening in our brain. We are deceived to think that we can act freely, however our actions are predetermined and are the consequences of chains of causes.

The major problem of this theory, as pointed by Nail_Bat, is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Nevertheless, we can easily solve this problem, by saying that the principle deals only with the results of the observations and experiments we make. In this case, the world is still deterministic (in the full sense of it – everything is predetermined) but we as humans cannot predict everything in hundred percents.

I find it a very coherent explanation indeed. Determinism is not a concept of what we can predict, as Nail_Bat said, but a property of the world itself – claiming that everything is predetermined. If we accept this definition (which I hope became clear and unambiguous) free will is nothing but an illusion.

On the other side, the Metaphysical Libertarianism rejects the fact that everything is predetermined and holds onto a concept of free will that requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances – "the power or ability of agents to act otherwise than they in fact do." In this case, free will is a true property of human beings (and of other creatures too, maybe) not just a false sensation.

The non-physical theories hold that the choices and actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, so they cannot be determined or predicted because of their own nature (not because of humans' lack of ability). They hold that a non-physical mind overrides physical causality making it prior to the deterministic causativeness, as the cause of itself. Even explanations that do not dispense physicalism, requires at least indeterminism, saying that some events are not predetermined.

It seems that the reason for Nail_Bat's ambiguity is his misunderstanding of the implications of the definitions, ignoring their inherent nature, which is clearly unambiguous.

Freedom, Liberty, Rights and Their Limitations

What is meant by Freedom and Liberty? Do they refer to the same thing? Can they be used interchangeably? Are there limitations on Liberty, or is it something that is supposed to be completely without restriction? If, as the Declaration of Independence declares, all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does that mean government can do nothing to restrict Liberty?

The full meaning of Freedom and Liberty is the study of politics and government itself. But what the terms themselves mean, and how they are used, is a smaller question that is nevertheless interesting and instructive. Whether these terms represent something that is unlimited in their scope, whether our political system guarantees to its citizens a form of liberty restrained by nothing but the equal rights of others, are questions that are important for a full understanding of republican government.

One should distinguish between the terms "freedom" and "liberty." Speaking generally, Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, although both refer to the quality or state of being free. Jefferson's use of the terms almost always reflected those meanings. Thus, he never spoke of freedom as a right, though liberty is listed in the Declaration as one of our inalienable rights. It is safe to say that whenever Jefferson spoke of freedom, he referred to that state that is free from despotic oppression. The thought of "limitations to freedom" in its general sense was never addressed as such because freedom was not used in the sense of our being free to do anything we want. Consequently, when he spoke of freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom, he was always referring to the release from despotic restraints; nevertheless, one might always assume that there were limitations of one sort or another. But it was not the limitations he was addressing, rather the release from oppressive restriction. All laws can be viewed as a restrictions on freedom, and such restrictions are proper in any well-regulated society. Jefferson recognized that freedom coupled with self-government in improper hands might subvert orderly restrictions and take freedom to extremes, as in the following passage:

"Everyone, by his property or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholesome control over their public affairs and a degree of freedom which, in the hands of the canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public and private." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Adams, 1813.

If we think of an activity as existing along a continuum from total oppression to totally without restraint, Jefferson used the term freedom in speaking of the lower end of the scale, free from oppression. He used specific language in his references to the higher end, but rarely if ever in terms of a general "limitation of freedom," as in the following passage:

"Considering the great importance to the public liberty of the freedom of the press, and the difficulty of submitting it to very precise rules, the laws have thought it less mischievous to give greater scope to its freedom than to the restraint of it." --Thomas Jefferson to the Spanish Commissioners, 1793.

This might seem pedantic, but you will notice that when he speaks of restraint, it is to be taken as applied to a particular subject, namely the press, not to freedom itself. Restrictions to "freedom" are much too abstract and theoretical a consideration; restrictions are to be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the particular matter at hand.

Limitations on Rights

When we speak of inherent and inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty, then we have shifted from something we are free from to something we are free to do. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness define aspects of human existence that allow human beings to act in fulfillment of their potential. And Jefferson frequently wrote of the limitations on our rights.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.

"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to I. McPherson, 1813.

Therefore, the idea that there should be any freedoms, any rights, or any liberties that are completely without limitations or restrictions would never be found in the writings of Jefferson. Every activity in life is subject to some kind of limitation. Even government itself is subject to various limitations, included those imposed by the Constitution. So that we might say that Jefferson believed in freedom from despotic oppression, in inherent and inalienable rights, but he also believed that all our actions in the exercise of our freedoms are subject to certain limitations and restraints.

The Declaration of Independence, the document that describes our fundamental rights, includes many implied limitations on government and on the people who live under government. Thus, governments are limited by "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And if a people find it necessary to alter or abolish government, it is their right "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." In other words, they may found it and organize it with such limitations placed on the government and on themselves as shall be "most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The very word "govern" implies imposed limitations, so that we might say, "The business of government is to govern." Limitations are the business of government, and are the other side of the coin of freedom itself.

Both reason and experience tell us that the notion of freedom or liberty without limitations is nonsensical, whether we are speaking of government, of life, or of anything else in this world. No rights are absolute and without restraint. And the writings of Thomas Jefferson certainly confirm that judgment.

The Standard Argument Against Free Will
The Standard Argument has two parts.

First, if determinism is the case, the will is not free.
We call this the Determinism Objection.

Second, if indeterminism and real chance exist, our will would not be in our control, we could not be responsible for random actions.
We call this the Randomness Objection.

Together, these objections can be combined in the Responsibility Objection, namely that no Free Will model has yet provided us an intelligible account of the agent control needed for moral responsibility.

Both parts are logically and practically flawed, partly from abuse of language that led some 20th-century philosophers to call free will a "pseudo-problem," and partly from claims to knowledge that are based on faulty evidence. We shall consider the evidence and show how to detect and correct errors in the reasoning.

Part One - The Determinism Objection

Determinism is true. All events are caused. All our actions are therefore pre-determined. There is no free will or moral responsibility.

Errors and evidence...

• Determinism is not "true." If anything physical is "true," it is indeterminism.

• Physical determinism is not "true" because physics is empirical, not logical. The evidence has never justified the assumption of strict determinism.

• Quantum mechanical indeterminism is extremely well established. While also not logically "true," the evidence for quantum mechanics is better established than classical physical determinism.

• Just because some events are adequately determined does not justify the widespread belief in an absolute universal determinism.

• Some events are unpredictable from prior events. They are causa sui, starting new causal chains.

• The "chain" of events behind a particular cause may go back to inherited characteristics before we were born, others may go back to environmental and educational factors, but some may go back to uncaused creative events in our minds during deliberations. Decisions have many contributing causes.

• We say correctly that our actions are "determined" by our (adequately determined) will. This determination does not imply universal strict determinism (as R. E. Hobart and Philippa Foot showed.

• Our will chooses from free alternative possibilities, at least some of which are creative and unpredictable.

• The will itself is indeed not "free" (in the sense of uncaused), but we are free.

Part Two - The Randomness Objection

Chance exists. If our actions are caused by chance, we lack control. We can not call that free will because we could not be held morally responsible for random actions.

Errors and evidence...

• Randomness in some microscopic quantum events is indeed chance.

• But microscopic chance does little to affect adequate macroscopic determinism.

• Just because some events are uncaused and involve chance does not justify the widespread fear that all events might be undetermined and random.

• Chance only generates alternative possibilities for thought and action. It is not the direct cause of actions.

• We are free, in control, and morally responsible for our choices and actions, because they are adequately determined.

-----------------------
| Related Terms |
| |
|• John Calvin |
|• determinism |
|• compatibilism |
| |
|[pic] |
| |