Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Determinism

the belief that all human actions and effects are caused by prior influences - we have no free will or moral responsibility

Libertarianism

the belief that we are free to act and make choices, we have both free will and moral responsibility

Compatibilism

the belief that whilst some human actions are determined, we still have moral responsibility

Moral Responsibility

to be held accountable for an action , only applicable if the action is committed freely

Faculty of Sympathy

Hume - humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. To an extent, this is universal

Hard/scientific determinism

Epicurus - no moral responsibility as all of our actions are caused by natural forces outside of human control, therefore ethical choices do not exist

• Reductionism - to understand a complex entity, one should analyse it to its smallest components - actions can be reduced to the actions that influenced it

Psychological Determinism

Everyone is a product pf their environmental and genetic conditioning (eg, Pavlov’s dog conditioning)

• Skinner - we have no free will because conditioning leads us to choose rewarding actions, and we have no control on our conditioning

Theological Determinism

God is omniscient (knows everything that will happen) and omnipotent (willed everything that happened) so free will is an illusion, everything is set out for us

Associated with Augustine and Calvin

STRENGHTS/WEAKNESS: hard determinism

Strengths

• supported by empiricism, logically easy, clear answer to ‘are we free?

  Weaknesses:

• Inductive reasoning - probable but not certain

• on a quantum level, physical behaviour is random and unpredictable - reductionism could go against it this way

STRENGHTS/WEAKNESSES: psychological

Strengths:

• supported by science and empiricism, easy to understand that we are conditioned by past experiences (seen in life)

  Weaknesses:

• Chomsky - Skinner uses animals to explain human behaviour

• Skinner himself has been conditioned by past experiences - can we trust him?

STRENGHTS/WEAKNESSES: Theological

Strengths:

• apriori logic to suggest a conclusion, supports fideism so applicable to religious people

  Weaknesses:

• questions nature of God - he predetermines suffering/going to hell?

• takes away the value of following deontological religious rules - no salvation through behaviour

• Aquinas - God is outside of time, so he witnesses decisions but does not cause them

Circumstantial freedom

freedom to perform an action without interferences of obstacles (eg, discriminatory laws)

Metaphysical freedom

freedom to choose an action among genuine alternatives

‘ought implies can’

Immanuel Kant - because we know what is right to do, it implies we have the ability to do it

guilt and remorse indicate moral freedom

libertarian view of punishment

punishment must be for retribution

• if for deterrence - uses criminal as means to an end

• if for rehabilitation - assumes criminal is incapable of reason

David Hume

Compatibilist, we are only blameworthy when our choices come from our character.

• Could I have done otherwise? - yes, if I had desired to do otherwise (morally accountable for this)

Compatibilist view of punishment

function of punishment should be to improve society - should be a part of social engineering through which fear of punishment helps to repress anti-social behaviour and encourage a virtuous character

criticism of Determinist/Compatibilist punishment

just desserts - sentencing should be proportionate to the severity of the crime

• the sentencing under determinist/compatibilist systems is too lenient