Concepts of determinism - Soft determinism

What is soft determinism?

• This is the belief that actions are caused but they also have an element of free will.

• The theory argues that people are determined but nonetheless still free - therefore morally responsible.

• This is because of the understanding of ‘free’

• To a soft determinist, being free is about being able to do what one wants without external coercion or interference from anyone else.

• It accepts human actions have causes - background, genetics, education etc, - but they are free if actions are caused by our choices (our freedom) rather than external forces.

• A person has free will if their predetermined will is not hindered 

Liberty of spontaneity 

• Soft determinism claims that all human actions are determined by external factors - but that moral choice can still be genuine if humans have not been forced to act in a particular way.

• This is called the liberty of spontaneity

What is this theory also known as?

• This theory is also known as ‘compatibilism’ because it sees determinism and free will working together.

• Indeed, freedom requires determinism in order to make sense of things, otherwise everything would be be random with no explanation.

2 perspectives of soft determinism

Soft determinism is seen from 2 perspectives:

• Thomas Hobbes 

• A.J Ayer 

• Both classical soft determinism 

• Who argue that part of a person's life is determined and part free willed. 

What does Hobbes argue? 

• His distinction between internal and external causes. 

What are internal causes? - Hobbes

• The choices a person internally makes - sometimes referred to as the ‘will’.

• But these are determined and can only be free when they are not forced/coerced/restrained by external causes.

• I.e. A persons will is determined but is free from external causes to make choices.

• To be at liberty is to not be restrained - which is not the same as to be uncaused.

• E.g. I want to (will) open the door for my teacher because I care (determined but not forced)

• Internal causes are individual wishes or desires which cause a person to act in a particular way, which may be determined by causation.

What are external causes? 

• When a person forces another person to do something against their determined will.

• E.g. I want to (will) open the door for my teacher, but another student pushes me out of the way (forced) and I cannot open it.

• External causes are factors which may cause a person to act against their own wishes or desires through some form of compulsion.

What analogy did Hobbes give to illustrate his point?

Hobbes gave his own analogy to illustrate this:

• He believed people were like a river flowing down a channel - they had no choice but to follow the channel but were at liberty to flow within the channel.

What is Hobbes key quote?

• ‘Man is free when he chooses what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants’

Overall, what does this means for human actions?

• Overall Hobbes makes the distinction between internal causes and external causes, arguing that actions determined solely by internal causes allow for free moral choice.

• This means that humans can be seen as morally responsible when acts are determined solely by internal causes.

• Here soft determinism differs from hard determinism.

What does Ayer argue? 

• His distinction between caused acts and forced acts. 

• Ayer looked at the meaning of the language used to discuss moral decision making. 

What does Ayer argue about when a situation is soft determinist?

• Ayer states when a situation is soft determinist (when a person’s ‘will’ is determined by internal cause but they are free from external causes) the person will use the word ‘caused’ to describe the event. 

• For example - the person was ‘caused’ by an internal cause such as the genetic reaction to heat, to take off their blazer. 

What does Ayer argue about when a situation is hard determinist?

• In the case of a hard determinist situation (when a person’s ‘will’ is determined by internal & external causes) the person will use the word ‘forced’.

• For example - the person was forced to keep their blazer on by their teacher.

So what do people make a language distinction between?

People make a language distinction between:

• Hard determinism - where both external and internal cause are forced.

• Soft determinism - where only an internal cause is causing an event, but there is no external cause.

What analogy did Ayer use to sum up?

• Ayer summed up the above difference with his analogy.

• Ayer stated that if he walked across a room because someone compelled him, observers would conclude he was not acting freely and that this ‘forced’ movement was completely determined.

• However, if he walked across a room without being compelled by another, observers would still assume it had a ‘cause’ because all actions must be willed by the person, even if our ‘will’ is determined.

• However, they would not say he was ‘forced’ because there was no external force placed upon him instead say he was ‘caused’.

Overall what does Ayer conclude? 

• Therefore, Ayer concludes that people make a language distinction between hard determinism (forced) and soft determinism (caused). 

• Overall when a situation is determined by an internal cause, we would say that the behaviour has been ‘caused'. 

• When it is determined by an external we use the word ‘forced’. 

What are the strengths of soft determinism?

• Soft determinism allows human actions to be  meaningful because of its compatibilist approach  - cause and effect coexist with human freedom.

• Whereas hard determinism would say human actions are meaningless.

• Without free will and determinism, there could not be moral responsibility. 

• Furthermore, soft determinism explains why we feel free and responsible.

• We feel that we could have acted differently after choosing a course of action.

• This is a more satisfactory and convincing response than arguing that choices are mere illusions. 

• Soft determinism gives us the moral right to punish people.

• This in effect enables us to protect society and provide justice.

• For instance, soft determinism would argue that a man who commits murder ought to be punished.

• By putting him in prison, society is protected and justice is safeguarded.

• Soft determinism argues for the uniqueness of humanity.

• Many might argue the point, that without human will and responsibility we are denied humanity. 

• We are separated from animals because we can choose.

• By denying this distinction we lose that essential part which makes us different.

What are the weaknesses of soft determinism?

• It is difficult to see how one can be both free and determined. 

• We are one or the other not both.

• There seems to be a fundamental contradiction of terms. 

• In addition, if acting voluntarily is to be considered central to the theory then animals could be seen to be morally responsible. 

• The theory rests on a flawed principle - this  undermining the whole compatibilist theory. 

• Critics argue that soft determinism’s definition of free will is too vague. 

• Soft determinism can be criticised because it is not  enough to make us morally responsible. 

• If the absence of constraints is all that is needed for us to make free choices, then this does not necessarily mean that it still belongs to the moral agent because soft determinism does not address whether internal factors (genetics or upbringing) still undermine true freedom. 

• Determining what is influenced by determinism and what is a result of free will is complex. 

• The interchange of environment, genetics, background and personal choice make it challenging to draw clear lines/distinctions.

• We can only be morally responsible if we had been the designer of our own being, but this is not the case as internal causes go further back in the chain of cause and effect and hence leads us back to hard determinism.

• William James used the term ‘quagmire of evasion’ to criticise the way compatibilists handle the issue of free will and determinism.

• He argued that these philosophers often avoid confronting the real, hard questions about determinism and instead of addressing the core issue - that determinism implies a lack of true freedom - they redefine freedom in a way that doesn’t actually resolve the conflict.