philosophy - free will and moral responsibility

determinism

no free will

all actions determined

David Hume - humans have an innate ability to understand right and wrong ‘faculty of sympathy’

= universal to an extent

= all feel morally responsible to an extent

hard determinism

every event in the universe has a cause - physical, mental events (universal causation)

decisions are a chain effect of cause and reaction

may think we have free will but is just result of complex processes occurring in brain

no control over env.

reductionism - analyse each complex identity to the smallest component parts of which it is made, each seemingly complex action is actually a cumulative effect of many simple actions

lack of free will means no moral resp.

psychological determinism

radical behaviourism - involves all aspects of mental activity

skinner - all behaviour is product of genetic and environmental conditions and all actions depend on cons. of other actions - also denied existence of internal phsycological states e.g. intentions and purposes

good consequences = repeat and vice versa

pavlovs dogs - classical conditioning

theological determinism

augustine

god is omniscient and omnipotent - knows all that will happen and has the power to change it

hinges on gods relationship with time:

• timeless - aquinas, doesnt exist in time and rather exists timelessly - no today, tomorrow or yesterday so see entire history of universe timelessly

• temporal - exists in time and therefore cannot be determined

s/ w hard det.

+ supported by science and empiricism

+ logically easy to easy

+ clear answer regarding q ‘are we really free?’

- inductive reasoning - probable not certain

- at a quantum level,, physical behaviour is random and unpredictable - reductionism therefore goes against determinism

s/ w psychological det.

+supported by science an empircism

+easy to understand we are conditioned by past experiences - why abused children find it harder to make emotional attachments as they grow

-chomsky rejects skinners behaviourism - uses animal behaviour to back up points reagrding human behaviour

-skinner conditioned by past experience so why should he be trusted?

s/ w theo det.

+clear answer to ‘are we really free?’

+apriori reasoning to suggest a conclusion

+supports fedeism (faith w/o evidence) and is applicable to religious people

-god = immoral monster?

-makes religious faith pointless

-takes away value of following religious deontologiical rules e.g. 10 commandments so cannot earn salvation through faith or behaviour

-aquinas: god is outside of time so witnesses decisions but cannot cause them - understands them simultaneously

libertarianism

humans have moral responsibility because they have metaphysical freedom

circumstantial vs metaphysical freedom

circumstantial - freedom to perform an action without interference from obstacles

• cannot be true as there are certain things we cannot do due to circumstances

metaphysical - power of the self to choose among genuine alternatives

• no factors that would mean our actions are determined

what does metaphysical freedom mean?

if someone breaks a rule/ the law, they should therefore be punished, meaning that people should be held morally responsible for their actions because they have the freedom to choose to break the law

Kant and libertarianism

Kant: deontological theory of ethics

‘ought implies can’ - moral duty to understand what they have been taught as right and wrong

crime is wrong regardless of the situation e.g. stealing if too poor to buy food and should ask for help instead

allows people to be free, helps to behave rationally, making us politically free

critique of libertarianism

id determinism is true, libertarianism is simply a determined response to a moral issue and therefore some are conditioned to believe we have free will

compatibilism

co-existing det. and lib.

DETERMINED: upbringing, genetics - affects how people see the world and make moral decisions

LIBERTARIANISM: free choice within the life that has been determined - deserving of punishment for wrong actions law is compatibilist

EXAMPLE - stealing due to poverty

• certain factors which led to the person thinking it was the right thing

• upbrining where law-breaking common, may not understand morality of action

  • compatibilists believe should be judged less harshly and have oppurtunity to change behaviour

comparing different approaches

determinism -

• no free will

• could not have chosen otherwise

• all actions determined by previous actions/ god

libertarianism -

• free will

• could have chosen otherwise

• metaphysical freedom = moral resp.

compatibilism -

• free choice to act but with limitations that are determined (upbringing, genetics)

• could have done otherwise is desired

• co-existing lib. and det.

• have moral resp.

are compatibilists morally responsible?

yes:

• their moral choice is not a result of physical restraints or coercive threats

  • they wanted/ desired to act as they did despite being aware of alternative choices

humes view of punishment

it is wrong however people are not morally responsible when actions done through ignorance

no sense to punish/ reward when actions are result of factors apart from what they choose

blame worthy only when choices come from character

humes view of heaven and hell

• makes little sense as souls dont exist

• most humans ‘ float between vice and virtue’ so must be punished in the same way

• ‘why would there be eternal punishment for the shirt-term offences of a frail creature like man?’

• ‘eternal damnation of one man is an infinitely greater evil than the overthrow of a billion kingdoms

  • eternal punishment/ reward is disproportionate

problems of compatibilist view

JUST DESSERTS

= theory that punishment should be proportionate to the crime

• compatibilism is seen as disproportionate as law seen as more lenient to those of different circumstances, therefore punishments seen as ineffective and retribution is not used as much

• pay attention to needs and wants of criminals rather than victims

INCOHERENCE OF COMPATIBILISM

= if either det. or lib. is true, then compatiblism cannot exist

• either have to be fully one or the other as free will cannot partially exist

• what compatibilists believe may already be determined

• what compatibilists believe might be the case cannot be true for libertarians as the will is free and therefore cannot be determined