• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Hard Determinism Negates Free Will, Discuss

Free essay example:

Hard Determinism Negates Free Will, Discuss

Hard Determinism is subject to cause and effect. Hard Determinists argue that we live in a mechanistic universe, supported by Newtonian physics. Newton argues that everything is governed by the laws of nature which can be determined by social, biological or political matters; therefore hard determinism negates free will.

Within this framework, Hard Determinists argue that the laws of cause and effect also apply to human behaviour. For example, in the field of Psychology Watson argued that out behaviour is determined by pre-controlled factors. Our behaviour and actions are involuntary reflexes to a prior condition. If this is to be so, then Hard Determinism does indeed negate freedom of will. Key thinkers such as Skinner and Loche have both contributed to the hard determinism argument. Skinner’s psychological findings show that our behaviour is modified by positive and negative factors. These actions in contrast to Watson are voluntary; however they are still determined by prior causes; therefore still negates free will.

The evidence presented suggests that free will is an illusion. This point is best described by Loches analogy of the ‘locked room.’ As a hard determinist, Loche’s analogy demonstrates how we are ignorant of the restriction opposed against us.  

It is evident that the Hard Determinism argument presents a logical, scientific theory which has many strengths to support how it negates free will. The Hard Determinism approach has scientific verification to support the argument. Furthermore, it appeals to our understanding of life as nearly in ever decision we make prior events are always thought of. The Clarence Darrow case also supports the theory to negate the freedom of will.

The strengths of Hard Determinism appears to be convincing, however many would argue that there are weaknesses and that it does not negate free will. Hard Determinism removes the principle of moral responsibility; therefore no one can be blamed for any actions. For example, a murderer cannot be held morally responsible for his/hers actions or receive any punishment .In addition the hard determinism theory makes all human beings to be just complicated machines.  A Libertarian would argue that Determinist rely on contingent truths. Determinists also treat factors that influence a person’s behaviour as a necessary truth. They stereotype that those from a particular background, must necessarily behave in a particular way.

It is evident that the given weaknesses suggest that hard determinism does not negate free will. Giving this we should look at alternative theories such as, soft determinism.  This theory accepts the mechanistic nature of the universe and the principle of cause and effect; however they reflect that free will has a deciding impact on a moral decision. Soft determinists therefore believe that hard determinism and free will are compatible, hence why this theory is otherwise known as ‘compatibalism.’  The soft determinism theory re identifies humanity by allowing a non empirical moral self. Giving this, acting morally independent can override prior causes. Personality and moral self are key factors in soft determinism. The personality is an empirical concept that is formed by heredity and the environment; therefore choices are influences. The moral self is said to overcome external pressures of the personality as it is able to recognise a moral duty. This theory is supported by key thinkers such as Hume, who argued how moral responsibility requires determinism.  

The soft determinism approach appears to be a reliable theory that suggests that hard determinism does not negate free will. The strengths are that it allows free will and determinism to be compatible, which suggests that when making a moral decision free will and prior causes both come into effect. This compatiablist idea appears convincing; however as with determinism many would argue that this theory has great weaknesses. For example, it cannot identify the departure point of cause and effect. The theory does not give specific guidelines as to which things are determined and which ones aren’t.

Giving the weaknesses of hard determinism and soft determinism, we should consider a Libertarianism view point. Freedom is the definition of Liberty, and therefore Libertarianism argues that we are free and morally responsible for our actions. Like soft determinists, Libertarians distinguish between a person’s formed personality and there moral self. The strengths of this theory are that it allows moral freedom when faced with a decision.  In addition, it allows decisions to be purely based on instinct. Key thinkers such as Campbell argue that moral choice is what distinguishes men from animal. The Libertarianism approach clearly suggests hard determinism does not negate free will.  In reply to this argument, hard determinists would argue that there is a difference between experiencing freedom and being free. In addition, a further weakness off the libertarianism argument is that, there are factors that we cannot control  such as, genetics and psychology; therefore they must be determined. When making any moral decision other issues always factor in our decisions, for example, emotions and values. Being so, the libertarian idea of total freedom must be flawed as the decisions would be partially determined by these other factors, which therefore suggest that hard determinism negates free will.

In conclusion the evidence presented demonstrates the arguments for and against the statement, ‘Hard Determinism Negates Free Will.’ I personally would argue in favour of the statement because it is scientifically verified that every action is determined by cause and effect.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Related AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy Skills and Knowledge Essays

See our best essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill." ...

    There seems to be a private sphere in our introspection, in which we cannot make mistakes. For example, you cannot be wrong about the fact that you are in pain when you actually are in pain. Who can tell but you?

  2. Consider the view that humans have no free will.

    out of hand, ending up in the victim being hospitalized, they would be partially morally responsible, but they would not have committed as great a crime as someone who intentionally attacked someone. Now, if we can only blame or thank people for actions they liberally and consciously undertake, then it's fundamental that human beings have freedom to act.

  1. Explain Aquinass cosmological argument

    but to accept that this being is a God that takes an interest in the world and requires worship is a huge step from this, and Aquinas assumes that people already have faith in the Christian God.

  2. Capital Punishment

    way'20 thus Wilcockson is saying that it does not give us a reason why we should do this, or if it has any effect on the criminal, it is simply relieving satisfaction which may not have any particular effect therefore no specific or valid reason.

  1. Compare hard determinism and Libertarianism.

    The challenge between the two then is that determinism speaks of the illusion of freedom and thus the absence of moral blame whereas Libertarianism disagrees. For hard determinists this idea of personality is completely unsatisfactory.

  2. Hard determinism and the religious approach to ethical living are not compatible"

    Rewards and punishment for moral behaviour makes sense only if the actions were not caused by another. Further Determinism leads to fatalism. If everything is determined beyond our control, then why do good and avoid evil? Indeed, if determinism is right, evil is unavoidable.

  1. Business environment

    The article fails to specify how the ethicist performs the control function. Fama and Jensen's (1983) argument supporting the arbitrator position of outside board members to solve agency problems between internal forces of management and shareholdcrs is not directly applicable.

  2. Assess the claim that Free Will and Determinism are compatible

    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.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work