Assess the claim that Free Will and Determinism are compatible
by
shakz1234 (student)
Critically assess the claim that Free Will and Determinism are compatible [35] There is an important relationship between freedom and moral responsibility. I should be ready to accept the blame for the things that I freely do wrong. If I'm made to commit an immoral action, then I’m not blameworthy. If I'm forced at gunpoint to drive a getaway vehicle from a bank robbery, then it isn't my fault. Even if I'm forced at gunpoint to give money to charity, I'm not praiseworthy. Moral blame/praise can only be attributed to actions that are freely taken. Freedom is defined as the power to act, speak or think as one wishes.In general terms, Determinism is the view that all events and actions in the universe are the effects of other causes. Hard determinism relies heavily on the credence that as we are not free at all to act in a different way, we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. As Aristotle maintained, "nothing happens without a reason". Honderich develops on this but relies on principles of Physics, namely Quantum Physics, to argue that determinism is much more complex - for instance, people may migrate across the planet and undergo profound social changes, yet their values dont seem to alter. Clarence Darrow, A hard determinist lawyer, successfully defended Loeb and Leopold for murder and cleared them of the death sentence. His plea was that they were indeed guilty of the crime, and should be imprisoned to protect society - but they weren't to blame. He used the idea of heredity and that they were socially conditioned in this way as a defence. This prolific case raised the issue of whether human beings are predetermined by nature or nurture to act in a certain way. Both Darrow and Honderich's form of Hard determinism becomes problematic when taking into account that human beings cease having any responsibility for their actions, meaning that nearly
anyone can be condoned for any crime.Starkly opposed to Hard Determinism is Libertarianism, with which the idea of free will is wholly advocated. Proponents of this position, such as Kant, hold that we are all free and should therefore, take full moral responsibility for our actions. Likewise, Jean-Paul Satre declares "man is free, man is freedom" - a deliberate oxymoron to his other saying that we are "condemned to be free", this emphasises the great weight of responsibility accompanying human freedom. Obviously we are unable to do things such as choose our parents or choose where our place of birth/death ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
anyone can be condoned for any crime.Starkly opposed to Hard Determinism is Libertarianism, with which the idea of free will is wholly advocated. Proponents of this position, such as Kant, hold that we are all free and should therefore, take full moral responsibility for our actions. Likewise, Jean-Paul Satre declares "man is free, man is freedom" - a deliberate oxymoron to his other saying that we are "condemned to be free", this emphasises the great weight of responsibility accompanying human freedom. Obviously we are unable to do things such as choose our parents or choose where our place of birth/death will be, but Satre goes on to say that we are responsible for how we feel and how we react to these situations - to become sidetracked and deny this, is bad faith. He goes on to instigate that our existence precedes our essence - unlike an inanimate object such as a penknife, human beings have no pre-established purpose or nature. Our destiny is somewhat spontaneous. We can choose whether we are to become a singer or an astro naught for example. Satre, unlike thinkers such as Aristotle, refused to accept a common human nature which could be the source of morality. Whilst a penknife's essence is pre defined (it should consist of a blade which is able to cut), human beings have no essence to begin with. The incompatibility between this position and hard determinism results in the assumption that it is unreasonable to hold people responsible for what they do. Praise and blame become redundant. Between these two extremes, stands Compatibilism. Classic Compatilists such as John Locke endorsed the idea of freedom and Liberty. He refuted the idea of the will being intrinsically free, instead suggesting the 'tabula rasa' - the mind as a blank slate which is filled by life experiences that create each person's moral framework. We as human beings develop morality during our lives. Locke notes that sensory reactions to the external world fill this blank slate of life. You cannot experience the life of an Olympic sportsperson if you are born incapable of motion. This blank slate is determined by nature. David Hume further endorsed this view of soft determinism. Hume states it is not God who determines the limits of human beings' free will, it is nature that is in ultimate control of human destiny. Events are determined because of a causal link between objects (CONSTANT UNION OF OBJECTS). If you are wanting to travel to a particular destination by plane, and your journey is delayed due to extreme weather conditions - this delay was always predetermined. The individuals' response to this situation, leads onto human free will - the individual may choose to change form of transport, perhaps commuting by train, or may choose to not travel and delay the trip altogether. The individual is free to make the choice, Hume calls this INTERFERENCE OF THE MIND. Hume's compatabilist thinking counteracts three particular ideas:The first is Libertarianism, which states that human beings are entirely free. The next is hard determinism, which asserts that everything a human being does is predetermined. The last idea that Hume rejects is the idea of chance, or what ethicists sometimes call moral luck. The latter is regarded as nonsense by Hume, simply because events are determined. They are not random; take a scenario where an individual is confronted by a robber. The victim acts spontaneously - they may decide to fight or to run away. The decision is theirs to make, but whatever they decide is not done by chance. It is a calculated decision. Hume and Locke uphold the notion that we can observe patterns in the physical world that we can also find in the decisions we make, so Adolf Hitler cannot be exonerated for the terrorism he spread, just because it could be argued he was predetermined. He also had free will and was therefore accountable for his actions- a hard determinist may have condoned Hitler on a purely deterministic basis and based upon such conclusions, I feel hard determinism falls down when aiming to make judgement calls. Libertarians attack Humean and Lockean views of free will. They argue that if human actions are determined by events, then free will is an illusion. Again using the example of the robber, hard determinists will counter argue that you have no free will. You will not fight the thief if they have a gun or are stronger then you. This robbery was predestined and inevitable. Both Hard determinists and Libertarians argue that you cannot separate causal connections and ultimate actions. You cannot break free once you are part of a chain. "Our actions are not more than effects of other equally necessitated events" - Hard Determinism puts doubt in our hopes and fears for the future. It could potentially exonerate all wrong-doers on the basis they aren't to blame. Where are we to draw the line between a freely sadistic criminal and one who was conditioned to be this way? Similarly, in a different context, should I not revise for an exam on the basis that the result is predestined? If I fail, was this failure inevitable? Does this mean I shouldn't try at all in my education? Volition within Hard Determinism proves to be irrelevant. This in itself makes Hard Determinism a weak system of decision making.Where Hard determinism places almost no emphasis on volition, Libertarianism places too much emphasis on autonomy. Kant states we are determined in so far as animals, conditioned by the material world. Both Libertarianism and Hard Determinism fail to accept that sometimes in moral decision making there needs to be a compromise; If rain ruins your plans to travel, you are free to find alternate means as Hume upholds. You are free yet determined. As the psychologist Eric Fromm infers; ''all of us have the potential to control our lives''. In a more complication situation such as the Clarence Darrow case - unless it is well proven (i.e. with mental diagnosis and substantially valid proof ) no one by law, should be exonerated on the basis that that they were socially conditioned in a particular way as it could prove to be a somewhat 'loophole' in the criminal justice system. Leob and Leopold should have had rigorous prognosis carried out in regards to Darrows' claims. In a similar example , The Queen of England holds a right to 'kill' anybody she so wishes and not be put under trial - arguably, she too has been conditioned to believe she is superior and more important than others, yet she chooses not to exercise this superiority out of free will, because it is against the norms and values of society - and also because murder is wrong. Leob and Leopold are no different. Libertarianism also comes under scrutiny as it becomes more complicated in its comprehension of what true freedom is. In real life, we will always be governed by the laws of the land, as well as in everyday scenarios. In that case, does this mean our very reality restricts us from true freedom? Even in institutions such as the Media, we are made to think in a certain way. Arguably then, it is impossible to be truly free. Another criticism that a geneticist may put forward, contrary to the Libertarian Sartre, is that infact our essence precedes our existence - as our essence is prevalent in our genetic makeup - some may be genetically gifted athletes, whilst others were born with genetic deformities. I would argue Soft Determinism, in this day and age is the most sensible and accurate form of moral decision making. It presents the balance of being both free and predestined and is coherent in its reasoning.