22
4
|
Posted by Anonymity Promoted 79 days 3 hours ago 1673 views
Other / Other General
|
16 comments
|
|
This was an essay I had to write for one of my classes. Hope you guys enjoy it and btw Libertarianism is different from Libertarians. Ones a political position and the other is a philosophical standpoint on free will.
There are many positions that can be taken regarding free will and determinism. However, over the decades it has been narrowed down to libertarianism or incompatibilism, soft determinism or compatibilism, and hard determinism. Each position demonstrates good arguments, although the Libertarians present the most convincing argument. I will discuss the Hard Determinist and Compatibilist positions, the objections they pose as well as problems with their beliefs. Lastly, I will discuss the libertarian standpoint along with their problems and I will pose my own solution to the problem of moral responsibility.
Soft determinism argues that all our actions are the results of the causes that influence us. In other words, there is an antecedent or preceding cause for all of our actions. However, many people confuse this with fatalism, which is the notion that all actions are predetermined. This is not what Soft Determinists claim; a Soft Determinist will claim that given the causes, the behavior of an individual is predictable. For the Soft Determinist an act is free and it is determined, which is why they are called Compatibilists. This may seem contradictory but Compatibilists think a cause is a determinant for a free action or that a cause can create more options. Take for example someone in high school; their marks determine their post secondary education, if they choose to do any and their marks determine which schools they are eligible to attend. The fact that a student is able to choose to attend or not attend and receive a post secondary education demonstrates their free will, while at the same time shows a cause determining their eligibility of attending a post secondary institution.
For compatibilism it is not a question of free will and determinism, it is a question of free will and constraint; a Compatibilist will argue that a person is free in all instances except where their actions are constrained. Furthermore, to a Soft Determinist a free act consists of two things, that the act is voluntary and the individual had the option to choose otherwise if they had so chosen. A different way to phrase the second condition is to say that a person would choose differently if they had a different character, different impulses, different beliefs, and so on. However, Strawson argues that a person cannot be held morally responsible when a cause already determines their actions because of a constricted will. The Libertarian Strawson argues that soft determinism only diverts moral responsibility onto causes instead of the person and cannot be true.
Many Soft Determinists, especially Frankfurt confuse moral responsibility and responsibility. Moral responsibility is the intent of doing an action and responsibility is being accountable for the cause of an event. For instance, if a person loses control over their car for whatever reason, hits, and kills someone, then they are responsible, but are not morally responsible. They are not morally responsible because they had no intent of hitting anyone. However, they are responsible because if they were not responsible, then the event would never have happened. In other words, the person is responsible for the cause of the crash, but is not morally responsible for the death of the pedestrian.
The Soft Determinist Susan Wolf proposes an interesting position. Wolf combines the ideas of Frankfurt, Watson, and Taylor. Frankfurt makes the distinction between freedom of action and freedom of will, more commonly known as “first order” and “second order” desires; where the “second order” desires dominate “first order” desires, this is equivalent to saying that we will our actions. Watson says that a person is able to make a free choice if the desire expressed by an action is of a particular kind. In other words, according to Watson there are “mere desires”, which are desires we cannot choose to have, such as an infatuation for chocolate and “desires that are values” or what we believe in. Taylor argues that we are free when we are able to “step back” from ourselves and revise, criticize, or reflect on our actions and choose if we want to keep our attributes or gain new ones. Wolf points out that Frankfurt and Taylor’s arguments do not solve the problem of free will and determinism, but only pushes the problem back further. In other words, if our actions are determined by something else, then the question becomes what determines our deeper selves that govern our actions?
According to Frankfurt, our deeper selves is determined by our third order, fourth order, fifth order, and so on desires. Similarly, Taylor claims that we are able to reflect and evaluate our reflecting selves. However, Wolf argues that this just creates an endless loop and tries to stop the loop by proposing a “deep self”, which she calls the “sane deep self”. Wolf gives the example of JoJo, who is a ruthless dictator that rules over his people mercilessly. As a boy, JoJo was exposed only to his father who taught JoJo his values and beliefs. Wolf argues that JoJo does this because he is insane or that he does not know the difference between right or wrong. Wolf argues that this level of sanity dominates all other actions and explains this is why some people are criminals or in this case dictators. For the purposes of her argument, Wolf defines sanity as being able to differentiate between right and wrong. However, Wolf inadvertently creates a new problem. The problem is if a person does something wrong are they automatically considered insane and if they are insane is there no way to become sane? For instance, a person may follow the norms of their society, such as the Nazis or slave owners. However, they may be following the norms because of a fear of persecution or isolation, but do not necessarily agree with these norms. Because of this, Wolf’s solution makes moral responsibility unnecessary because we cannot hold an insane person morally responsible.
Hard Determinists argue that free will does not exist, determinism is true, and we are not morally responsible for our actions. Hard Determinists believe that everyone is conditioned or trained to act in certain ways depending on their causes. If hard determinism is true, then given the information about the past the future is intelligible. Hard Determinist B.F. Skinner believes that people are conditioned or trained into doing acceptable actions. Skinner gives this explanation as an answer to why people commit crimes and choose unacceptable actions and explains why punishment discourages negative behavior. Some find this answer satisfying, however, this does not explain why people recommit crimes after being punished or conditioned. Suppose that someone is held at gunpoint and the gunman is making demands that go against the person’s morals, the Hard Determinist will say the person will give in to the demands, but what if the person refuses the gunman’s demands? That is to say, there is something else internally which makes this decision. In this scenario, a Hard Determinist cannot give an accurate guess of what will happen because the person can choose to fight back, run away, or even choose to be shot.
There are many other problems within hard determinism; if a person were to analyze the information of the past, then they are able to predict their future. The Soft Determinist Ayer points out if people are able to see what misfortunes lay ahead of them, then it is true that they are able to avoid them and if they do this, then it is not true that they are able to see into the future. The Hard Determinist claims that everything is intelligible, but there are many cases where there is no explanation, even in science. However, if Hard Determinists think that universal laws are intelligible, then they must first prove all the laws of the universe, otherwise it is nothing more than hypothetical speculation.
Libertarians argue that we are not determined, we have free choice, and we are morally responsible for our actions. The Libertarian Chisholm is correct in saying that every event is caused from a sole author or agent, which is the person. According to Chisholm, people are prime movers unmoved or that they choose what they want with no preceding cause affecting their decisions. Libertarians do not claim that universal causation is false, they believe that there is a subset of actions we have control over called “Human Actions”. Libertarians argue that an act is free when an agent is the sole author of an act and can do otherwise. This means there is no cause that makes a person choose, rather it is the person that makes the decision with no cause affecting their actions. Two problems emerge from a Libertarian standpoint, the first is that if there are no causes it is considered a random act. The second problem is predictability. That is, a person may have an accurate guess of someone’s actions based on their character, beliefs, morals, values, and so on.
Chisholm solves the first problem by distinguishing two types of causation, the first being “immanent causation”, which is a person causing an event and “transeunt causation”—where an event causes another event. Chisholm provides Aristotle’s example of picking up a staff, Chisholm explains by picking up the staff various things happen like causing air particles to move or the muscles in the arm that move the hand. Chisholm discusses that eventually there is an event in the brain, which causes all these events; and the cause in the brain came solely from the person. Chisholm solves the second problem by stating that when an event occurs because of a particular cause, Hard and Soft Determinists assume that it will happen no matter what. However, the assumption they make is not guaranteed, rather it is a probable assumption of what will happen. Since it is a probable assumption, this means there is a chance the person will act otherwise.
The Libertarian Campbell agrees that a person’s environment or heredity can play a crucial role when a person makes a choice. He states that if a person does do an action within these circumstances, they cannot be considered the sole author. However, Campbell argues that a person has free choice only when they must make a decision or what he calls “moral effort” between their duty—what is expected of a person and their temptations. However, Campbell’s argument is insufficient to answer the question of moral responsibility. For instance, if a person saw someone drop a five-dollar bill, Campbell would say the person would follow either their temptation or duty, however, what if the person chose not to do these things? In other words, they chose not to return the bill nor pick it up for themselves, but instead walked away; from this, it is apparent there is something missing.
My solution to the problem of free will and moral responsibility is Chisholm’s distinction combined with Campbell’s idea of “moral effort” between temptation and duty, along with my own addition. Campbell cannot explain why a person walks away from a five-dollar bill instead of following their duty of returning it or following their temptation of keeping it. Nevertheless, if I change the amount of money from five dollars to fifty dollars, the person exhibits a stronger sense of duty and temptation, but why do they do this? From this, it is apparent there is something that dominates Campbell’s theory, which I call the evaluation process. The evaluation process is based on a person’s mental states; this explains why a person might disregard a five-dollar bill because they might be in a rush and decide that it is not worth the effort. However, if it was a fifty-dollar bill, it is apparent that there is a stronger feeling of both temptation and duty and the person may evaluate it as something more important and decide to follow either their temptation or duty. The evaluation process decides how important X is and a person’s mental state decides if they will choose to follow either their temptation or duty. With Chisholm’s distinction between “transeunt” and “immanent” causation, it refutes the notion of a random action and holds the person as the sole author of an act.
Even though the Hard and Soft Determinist believe that their respective views are true, they are in fact both flawed. Unlike these positions, Libertarians provide the most convincing argument and although some arguments may be incomplete, both the evaluation process and mental states of a person can answer the question of freedom and moral responsibility.
Related Links:There Is No Freewill We Will Be Telling The Stories Of The Meaning Of Freedom