Soft and hard determinism, libertarianism, and freedom of will

Outline of freedom and of the will, hard determinism, libertarianism, and soft determinism

determinism

all things have a cause or set of causes

because of these causes, certain effects had to have occurred. It could not by any other case.

incompatibilism

determinism and free will are not compatible ad cannot co-exist. (either/or) there are two main types:


1. hard determinism
2. libertarianism

hard determinism

we are totally determined

we are not free/responsible

\
\
* It is important to keep in mind through all these discussion of the freedom of the will the moral implications of each point of view.  There are serious consequences according to each view.
* Traditionally, morality proceeds from the situation that we are indeed free.
* Moreover, we make choices; and, depending on our choices there will be the result of different consequences.
* Consider also that the idea of praise or blame only exist if we are free.
* Culpability or responsibility for our actions depend on how free we are.

\
* Hard determinists tends to appeal to the principle of **universal causation** which is essentially the idea that everything has a cause.
* However, hard determinists interpret the principle of universal causation in a strict way.  Each cause has a necessary consequence.  Thus, one can predict based on what occurs in the universe the effects thereof.
* Consider that in ancient time, all observed events were attributed to conscious agents (e.g. the gods).  For example, diseases, winds, storms, etc. were thought to be cause by demons, spirits or gods.
* Thus, nothing occurs which does not have a conscious being worthy of praise or blame.
* It could also be said that the changes in the world are brought about by causal irregularities, not conscious beings.
* The hard determinist said that these are false views about the world.  The world manifests itself predictably based on governmental universal laws.
* The argument runs as follows:


1. Events in the physical universe consistently display well defined causal connections.
2. Events in the biological realm also display causal connections.
3. Because human beings are part of the physical universe and biological realm, it is reasonable to assume that all of our actions and decisions that initiate those activities are also causally determined.
4. Therefore, there can be no free choices.  Or, what precedes an event, necessitates that event.

 

* Consider the implications: what about murder?  Is that determined?  Hard determinism explains your terrible actions, but doesn't it also take away joy from your achievements?

 

* Two notable figures which hold such hard determinist views are:

\-Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749-1827)

\-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)

 

* Laplace wrote a book on physics which made no direct reference to God.  In response to a question posed by Napoleon, Laplace responded most famously, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."  This is the first reduction of God from science.
* Laplace claimed that everything that is happening now was determined by an event billions of years ago.  For example, 5 minutes after the beginning of the universe one would be able to predict everything. (See Laplace's Demon)
* D'Holbach claimed that humans are part of the machine of nature; and therefore, they are part of all other causes of other natural entities.
* D'Holbach said that the accidents of your birth determine your character.  Thus, your character has been given to you based on when and where you were born.
* D'Holbach, in his claim to the machine of nature and universal causation, basically argues that your physical features are out your control, the way you think is not in your power, and you are constantly being molded by other people.

libertarianism

we are not totally determined (some degree of biological and social conditioning)

we have free will and are responsible

\
analysis of free agency: an act is freely preformed if:

* the agent chooses to preform the act
* the agent was not forced or compelled todo the act
* the agent must be able to choose and act alternatively at the time o the choice and the action. (this is also known as the doctrine of contra-causal free will: the will is undetermined by anything other than itself)

\
* do not confuse this with the social/political/economic perspective_ is at its core the assertion of the reality of free choice/will
* allows for a reasonable amount of determination however, but, the strict necessity of relation between cause and effect is not binding like the hard determinists claim. really, it is hard to deny that there are not causal factors which do in fact influence or limit our freedom
* american philosopher and psychologist William James published an essay titled “the will to believe” in which he critiques the deterministic view, especially hard determinism
* james says that such abilites only make sense if there are genuine alternative choices. we frequently find ourselves in situations where important decisions need to be made
* james explains “the judgement of regret” which is the desire that events that occurred might have occured differently or with other more desirable outcomes
* james says to think about the mistakes you have made. consider, if you could go back and change things, would you? if you feel this way, then you feel a judgement of regret.
* ultimately, the deterministic view cannot explain a judgement of regret

compatibilism:

determinism and free will are compatible and can co-exist

soft determinism

we are totally determined by external (especially material) causes. (in some cases, by god)

we have free will and responsibility with regards to internal causes, but to a certain degree.

Analysis of free agency: an act is freely preformed if:

* the agent chooses to preform the act
* the agent was not forced or compelled to do the act
* god could determine the will

passive self-determinism (compactibilism/soft determinism)

freedom means being able to do what one wants to do, without (external) coercion or interference from anyone else. What one wants, is determined from external events, as long as there is consistency, then they are free.

soft determinists

* auguestine: freedom refers to being able to d what one chooses to do (even if god knows beforehand what one is going to do)here freedom means freedom to act. when my act is caused by external forces it is not free. when it is caused by my choice, it is free
* spinoza: freedom is the active acknowledgement and affirmation of one’s complete determination. one is freed from the burdens of hopes and fears by recognizing that whatever one chooses to do could not have been otherwise.
* Hume: what is necessity ( or lack of freedom) other than our experinece of the fact that things always happen with some form of regularity? we assume that things cause other things insofar as we see that some thing happen with regularity before and near other things. in short, a cause is nothing moew than a kind of event we regularly experience preceding another kind of event. some things that human beings do are preceding by their choices: these we call free or voluntary actions. oter things are not preced by choices (for example, as when you slip and fall): these are called involuntary actions.

objections to passive self determinism

1. to say that we are not free only when compelled by external forces (threats) ignores the fact that inner, unconscious coercive forces (compulsions) can determine out actions just as much.
2. the fact tht we chose to act a certain way does not guarentee that our choice is free or that we have had any say-o in the determinism of our character or personality. External forces cause the personality or self to be as it is; so how can we really be said to be free?

active self determinism

we can ultilmately choose independently of culture and past conditionin because we can be self-aware and can engage ina crituque of ourselves. In short, we can transcend or “step outside” of ourselves to reflect on what we ave become and decide wether we want to remain that way. This self-awareness allows us to be free to make new and creative decisions. This view is the one adopted by Aristotle.

active self determinist

aristotle: we are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. we are responsible for any action that resutls from our “culpable” ignorance or negligence if any resonable person in our circumstances could have avioded such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a reasonable person thins, and that means not allowin ourselves to become selfish or lazy. ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundatuion on which our actions are based. we are nt responsible for invooluntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which reult from coersion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.

objections to active self-determinism

1. know that we are reflectng or thinking in a reasonable fashion if we were not following a regular (law-governed) order or sequence of ideascoming to know about oneself reflectively does not make oneself any less determined, for the process of coming to know oneself preesumably by just as determined as other knowledge.
2. doesn’t the sheer fact of self-reflection really mean that self-consciousness is outside the order of determinsitic (law governed) causes? but how is that possible? And how would

indeterminism objections

1. undermines thhe whoe scientific effot to explain nature and human beings, and it makes such an effort a wast eof time insofar as ti does not guarentee that understangin human behavious willl alow us to imrpove it
2. if choices and actions are not determied evem by one’s personality or character, then a so-called “free” act would be one that occurs spontaneously and unpredictably (evem to the person doing it); thus no one could justifably be held responsible for doing an action which not even he'/she could have predicited would occur. Pure chance is thus not freedom

indeterminism

certain decisions and acts (free) have nthing that causes them to occur; they are oure chance events. they are not causally determinedby anything prior to their occurence, the assumption that all events in nature are determined is unwarranred; indeed, chance ebents are perhaps evem mecessary to account for diversity of things in the unviverse. In addition, current theortical physics recognizes that subatomic events occur in completely random and (in principle) unpredictiple ways. since not every event is predictable, and since a completely caused (determined) event would be predicable, not event event is caused. such indeterminacy opens up the possibilty that we can really affect the future; and in this way we can be free and morally rwesponsible

James: pragmatism objections

1. evem wanting to believe that one is free is itself setermiend by past events. besides, wanting to believe something to be true does not make it true
2. we dont have to assume that we are free in order to hold oursevles and others responsible; olding people responsible is not identical with actually being responsible

william james: pragmatism

since the belife in wether we are free or determined might utilimately be irresolvable in a purely theotherical way, we have to make a practical choice about what to believe. Considering what is at stakr, moral responsiblity, a reaosn for trying to improve thinfs in the future, a justification for regretting evil, it is perfectly rational to believ that some decisions might have no absolutely determinin causes and that there are genuine options in acting. in short, that we are free. in other words, on “morally rational” grounds, indeterminism (thinking that some human actions have no specific determining causes) is preferable to determinism. at least if we adopt indeterminis (and the freedom it implies), we seem to be able to explain our experience of choice much more convincingly than if we adopt determinism.