Determinism and Free Will
Jadon Deaton - H03
Determinism: Determinism is defined as the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
Free Will: Free Will on the other hand can be defined as the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints.
Some main philosophers that have dealt with determinism include William James, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzche, Baron d’Holbach, David Hume, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant.
Determinism vs Free Will:
When it comes to comparing the two, there are some important terms to consider. Dealing with determinism first, the term “hard determinism” is essentially...
- Hard Determinism: the belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur
- This means that it is incompatible with free will, so therefore free will does not exist
- “Determinism [typically] doesn’t allow options. It holds that every event is caused by a previous event”
On the other hand, free will involves the viewpoint known as Libertarian Free Will (which has nothing to do with the political association). This can be defined as...
- Libertarian Free Will: the belief that some human actions are freely chosen; completely disregarding the deterministic universe
- This leads to “free actions requir[ing] options”
When comparing the them, there are two important concepts to pay attention to. In regards to determinism, the idea of reductionism is key. Reductionism is the view that all parts of the world, and of our own experience, can be traced back-or reduced down-to one singular thing
- “The difference between the causes of human actions and the causes of physical events-like a bat hitting a ball-is that our actions have all sorts of invisible causes that happen in our brain”
- So when beliefs combine with our desires and then our temperament, they say you get a deliberate human action, but when you change on factor (in hurry to get somewhere, health problems, etc.) you get a different outcome
When discussing free will, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities comes into play. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities states that an action is free only if the agent-that is, the person doing the thing-could have done otherwise. This leads to two sub-categories, which lead to different arguments within the universe of free will: Event and Agent Causation
- Event Causation claims that no physical event can occur without having been caused by a pervious physical event (for example, a baseball flying through the air was because someone hit it with a bat)
- Agent Causation is when an agent-a being propelled by a mind-can start a whole chain of causality that wasn’t caused by anything else (for example, the person who hit the ball most likely did so because they just decided to do it)
“Many libertarians concede that the physical world itself is deterministic”
This video from Crash Course in Philosophy goes into depth about the difference between determinism and free will while also making it easier to understand.
Varieties of Determinism:
As discussed above, determinism means that all events are and have been determined in advance. But there are also many different factors that can alter this definition. This results with many different varieties and forms of determinism that exist in the philosophical and theological realm. Some of the major ones include predeterminism, theological determinism, fatalism, and structural determinism.
Predeterminism: Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past, present and future, have been already decided or are already known, including human actions.
Predeterminism is sometimes confused with predestination. They are in fact not the same. The difference is that “predestination is (theology) the doctrine that everything has been foreordained by a god, especially that certain people have been elected for salvation, and sometimes also that others are destined for reprobation while predeterminism is the belief that all events that occur have already been determined.”
R. E. Hobart or Dickinson S. Miller was a student of William James, later becoming a close friend of his. “Hobart (Miller) criticized the core idea of James' The Will to Believe, namely that it was acceptable to hold religious faith in the absence of evidence for or against that faith. James referred to Miller as ‘my most penetrating critic and intimate enemy.’” Hobart (Miller) mainly focused on predeterminism while also connecting it with the concept of compatibilism (see below section).
Theological Determinism: Theological Determinism is the view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.
It is also a form of predeterminism that claims that all events that happen are pre-ordained, and/or predestined to happen, by one or more divine beings, or that they are destined to occur given the divine beings' omniscience.
Some prominent historical figures that were theological determinists include St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Gottfried Leibniz.
Fatalism: Fatalism is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable.
Philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.
“Fatalism is often thought to apply to general events, such as meeting the love of your life, without applying to everything (you could meet him or her in lots of different ways). Unlike with determinism, it is possible to be fatalistic without knowing how events are fated—whether by God, causality, or for some other reason.”
Structural Determinism: Structural Determinism concerns the view that there are structural elements or factors that deterministically affect outcomes, events, or processes.
It is a concept that stresses rational, predictable outcomes and is suggestive of predetermined outcomes, given any particular structure or system of estimable factors.
Compatibilism: Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations.
Compatibilism teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. It claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. We freely make choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of our heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature).
It can also be associated with the term “soft determinism.”
This video from Crash Course in Philosophy talks about compatibilism in regards to an understanding of free will.
Questions:
- What resonates with you more, the idea of determinism or the concept of free will? Do you agree that there can be a middle ground?
- Why do you think people assume predeterminism is the same thing as predestination? Do you think that they have something in common? If so why?
- Do you find it easier to understand free will or determinism? Which one do you think is harder? What are some factors that play into this?
Citations:
Determinism:
Free Will:
Determinism vs Free Will:
Predeterminism:
Theological Determinism:
Fatalism:
Structural Determinism:
Compatibilism:
Hobart or Miller?
ReplyDeleteWJ's point was that we're entitled to invoke our "volitional nature" when the available evidence for or against a proposition we're inclined to believe is inconclusive AND when our choice is what he calls forced and momentous. He did not think we have a right to believe in the face of compelling counter-evidence. But he also did not think it prudent in such cases to permanently suspend judgment and belief, since nothing else suffices to motivate action (and only action sustains life and furnishes a practical basis for the evaluation of belief).
What's your view?