Social conditioning suggests that people think and act in line with their social conditioning rather than through being genetically determined or real freedom of choice. This would mean human action must have a distinct social cause and all our actions are because of something within society. Thomas Sowell said “social conditioning is the idea that human self is infinitely plastic, this allows humanity to be changed and moulded and becoming ultimately perfected.” Our actions would be determined by upbringing, education, friends and whatever social setting we were in. This theory suggests that our social learning and placement determine our actions and we can do nothing but follow that path. For example, Darrow, a lawyer argued that two young men had believed “they were superior to the rest of society and could commit the perfect crime” due to being “rich and intelligent young men”.
Genetic determinism claims physical and behavioural aspects of humanity are determined by predominantly genetics, yet some biologists argue other influences may play a part, e.g. nurture. However genes control a lot of who we are and how we behave. This raises the question if genes determine our actions then how can we be morally responsible? Evolutionary ideas in psychology say that we have evolved in certain ways to survive and part of this is being partially determined or controlled by our genes. Steven Pinker said moral reasoning is a result of natural selection, as ideas such as love, jealousy and guilt all have a basis in human biological evolution. He however believes humans do have a sense of moral responsibility as humans are said to have all evolved with an innate sense of morality.
A hard determinist suggests that all choices are determined by other events or actions prior to the choice. Similarly to Freud, this means that they are all causes by other choices made in the past. Honderich stated “all our choices, decisions, intentions, other mental events and our actions are no more than effects of other equally necessitated events.” This theory believes humans make choices thinking they’re using free will however every event lead up to this choice and therefore it had already been determined. Hard determinism is considered very strict and rigid in its beliefs. Hard determinism comes to the conclusion that if everything is previously determined we are not free to act in any other way and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions as we didn’t choose them.
In comparison to hard determinism, there is libertarianism. Libertarianism says we are completely free and nothing is determined in any way. This theory developed when some philosophers began to believe we couldn’t say everything was determined and accept no responsibility for our actions. It also stems from peoples argument that they needed to have freedom to act and be self-determining. (Also referred to as incompatibilism as it isn’t compatible with determinism.) Libertarianism does not believe our actions are related to cause and as our moral actions are a result of individual character and values. Hume said “By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.” Libertarians do not see a compulsion to act, every choice you make is free. Therefore we have to be responsible for performing these free actions. For example, there may be two different paths and it is down to you as a person to choose which path. Once you have chosen you are aware as to whether it was the right or wrong choice. But it was us that choose the course of action, so we are morally responsible. Another example is linked to social conditioning, such as, if a person has grown up in an area of poverty, surrounded by drugs etc., some people say they are destined to act in the same way. Yet not everybody does. Libertarianism says that is a choice. We all have freedom of choice and that is not hindered by determinism.
Soft determinism is an attempt to combine liberalisation and hard determinism. It could not be described as a compromise but it seeks to bring freedom and accountability together with the belief that choices are predetermined by prior choices. Soft determinism emphasises the moral responsibility for actions we perform. Simply meaning we are responsible for all our moral actions regardless of whether they may have been determined by our values or choices. Raising the complex question, if we are all responsible for our actions, then surely we should be totally free to perform the action to truly accept the responsibility? Compatibilism is the mix between determinism and free will. They believe that freedom to act is doing what you want to do, without any interference and completely voluntarily. They also say our desires, values and prior choices are likely to pre determine how we act in certain situations. However the causes of our actions are so complex that they’re mostly random in their effects. This would suggest our actions are determined but all free because there is no external coercion involved.
John Locke believed that free will was an illusion. He said the defining part of voluntary behaviour was that you could pause and reflect before you made a choice therefore deciding what the consequences of the action would be. For example, if a man wakes up in a locked room and chooses to remain there, not knowing he is locked in. The man believes he has made the choice to stay there, however in reality he had no choice. Meaning it was determined.
Sartre said “A choice is said to be free if it is such that it could have been other than what it is” Believed that with absolute freedom becomes absolute responsibility, so if you wanted complete freedom the consequence is 100% moral responsibility. One idea was “man is not free not to be free” It did no matter what you chose, as moral responsibility dealt with that, but rather that you were free to choose at all.
by
lucyobyrne (student)
