Thus it would seem that overall, we are unable to freely choose for ourselves and thus we have no choice in what we decide to do as it has determined by previous effects over which we have no control. The easiest way to visualise such a predicament is to use the idea of forks.
We can visualise a point in our life when in life we come to a choice as a single line which then branches out into a number of forks, however with determinism it would seem that there is only ever one single line as the choice has already been determined by multiple pre-existing factors. Thus the idea that we have a choice at these points i.e. there is more than one fork we can take, is an illusion.
This clash between free will and determinism has great repercussions, the idea that we have no control over our lives is extremely troubling; more so at points when we face hardships as it would seem they as if they are almost forced onto us by some external force. The possibility of freedom from the ‘shackles’ of determinism is also troubling, as it would seem to be impossible, even the having the notion of escaping from determinism would seem determined by the fact that it was determined through some sort of research that we would attempt such an ‘escape’ once finding out about it due to some quality that has been instilled inside of us when we were younger.
However as is always the case, a number of philosophical arguments have often been raised about this dilemma.
There are some arguments that determinism in itself does not exist. Opponents have used such example of seemingly random events such as the position of an electron or even the creation of the universe, to state that random events (i.e. events that have not followed a logical chain of cause and effect) are examples where determinism has not followed. Some have argued that the laws of nature can determine a number of futures, the gap between these possible futures and the one that eventually occurs is due to free will. Others have argued that ‘cause and effect’ are ultimately only an interpretation of the universe and not actually the way it works.
Many famous philosophers have also analysed the apparent dilemma and many have concluded that free will is in fact compatible with determinism and thus they are called compatibilists.
Hume, the 18th century British philosopher, examined free will to conclude its compatibility with determinism; he introduced the idea of ‘Liberty of Spontaneity’. He explained it as being as ‘that which is opposed to violence’. Liberty of Spontaneity is the ability to act free from interference (‘external impediments’) i.e. if you are free then you are ‘not hindered to do what you have a will to do’. Thus if I wanted to get up and open the door, and there was nothing preventing me from doing so (bound to a chair or the door being locked) then I am free. Thus free will is compatible with determinism as even though it may have been determined that I open the door, I wanted to open the door and my liberty of spontaneity was not affected. People who adopt this view are often referred to as ‘soft determinists’.
Hume’s views have been shared by many other philosophers; Locke cited that ‘so far as a man has power to think or not to thing, to move or not to move, according to the preference and direction of his own mind, so far is a man free.’ Thus once again, it is explained that as long as it coincides with the desire of the person(s) affected, any action carried out is free. Hume’s views can also seen to be shared by the 17th century philosopher Hobbes; ‘from the use of the words free will... the liberty of the man... that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do.’ Once again free will relies on the ‘inclination’ of man not on what caused him to have such a inclination.
Under the same context, some philosophers have disagreed and used the example of ‘liberty of indifference’. A ‘level’ of freedom that is higher than the ‘level’ cited by the philosopher of ‘liberty of spontaneity.’ Interestingly Hume when discussing free will described all other liberties as a ‘negation of necessity and causes.’ In essence it denies the idea of cause and effect and thus is open to easy criticism. Many would thus argue that ‘liberty of spontaneity’ is an incoherent concept. The idea that our actions have no effect would effectively make any action futile, for it is randomness that causes our actions not ourselves.
