Philosophy
Compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism and libertarinism as outlined in chapter 4. What are the weaknesses and strengths of each of these positions? Which one do you believe is the most likely to be correct? Why?
Determinism is a term that was coined in the 19th Century to explain causal law in the motion of atoms in structures. Today it is a philosophy that is believed to be metaphysical because it uses laws of physics to explain sociological phenomena. This philosophy is based on the premise that in order for something to happen there must be some conditions that are necessary, and without these conditions the event would not have happened (Solomon, 2009). For something to happen there must be certain and specific preconditions that if they are not made available the end result will be completely different. Determinism is often associated with the term causal determinism that is used in physics to explain the cause – effect relationship of two situations. In physics one situation causes the other to occur (Solomon, 2009). In the social world our actions are believed to set in motions forces that lead to certain outcomes. For instance when someone studies and revises for an exam he sets into motion forces that will make it easy for him to do the exam and consequently pass.
The opposite of determinism is non- determinism that believes in the free will. This means that things happen on their own without any cause making them to happen. This however does not offer sufficient explanation that is tangible to explain the occurrences of particular incidences. Determinism is most of the time confused with pre- determinism and determination; however the three terms have three completely different meanings. Pre- determinism is the belief that all the things that happen were already set and meant to happen by forces in the universe and nothing can change them (Hooft, 2001). While determination, is the idea that, events are completely determined by our psychological notions and understanding towards them, these include motives and desires.
One of the major strengths of determinism is that it helps in establishing responsibility for our actions. This is because according to determinism people are not restricted to choose some things and leave out others but our choice determines our outcomes. This explains the main point of determinism, that there is nothing ‘uncaused’ or self caused. Determinism can also be used to explain and predict the future events. This is under nomological determinism whereby the events in the past and those in the present are used to predict the future. This is practical because the events in the past during the industrial revolution where there was use of coal to manufacture commodities and also the current use of non renewable sources of energy has led to the current state of global warming and there is a high chance that the increase in temperature will not reduce. This are actions in the present and in the past that are used to predict the situation that will arise in the future
The main weakness of determinism is that there are some situations and experiences that arise and there is no cause for them, this philosophy cannot be used to explain such occurrences (Hooft, 2001). These are termed to be self determined; this is a belief that goes against the premise of determinism.
Compatibilism is also known as soft determinism, is a philosophy that believes determinism and free will are compatible ideas. One can believe in both philosophies without being logically wrong. It is based on the premise that there can be presence or absence of freedom depending on the situation. Freedom of choice is an essential aspect of compatibility; human beings are entrusted with the freedom of choice to take what they want and to leave out what they do not desire (Kant, 1952). However as much as there is freedom without coercion, the outcome of every choice is determined. Let’s take the example of a student who knows that he has an end of academic year exam, he has three choices he can either choose to read and properly revise, he may choose to only read when the exam nears or he may choose not to read at all and engage himself in other activities. He has the freedom of choice; however every decision made has a determined outcome. If he reads and revises properly he will pass the exam well and get good grades, if he reads only during the exam time, he may pass but just averagely but if he chooses not to read at all he fails the exam and may have to re-sit it again. This is the major strength of compatibility, the fact that it points out a situation the way it is.
The weakness of this philosophy is mostly based on the definition of the term ‘free will’. Freedom to act is not sufficient enough to be termed as free will (Kant, 1952). Free will is when ones actions are not bound by anything from the external environment but is purely based on their motivation and desire. In the actual sense human beings are bound by beliefs, customs, traditions and mostly the law that prohibits one from acting as freely as they would like. We may have the freedom to choose but we always put into considerations the society and our loved ones and most times our so called freedom to choose is not so much of freedom.
A good example is how people willingly choose wake up every morning and head out to work. If most of these people are asked they would rather not, because they wouldn’t want to deal with the morning traffic, the busy days at work while the salary sometimes is not efficient, the nosy colleagues and the scary bosses, but people still choose to go to work. As much as we say that we freely choose, we don’t the society has set already ways in which our lives will turn out even when we still have an array of choices.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is based on the premise that there should be individual and political freedom and voluntary acceptance. It is a word that came from the classical liberalism that was based on social, economic and political freedom and open minded to acceptance of new ideas (Cantor, 2011). This is the real definition of belief in free will as opposed to determinism. It is against the use of force and power to coerce people into acting in particular ways. It is based on the belief that without being forced or coerced people will eventually gain a moral stand there will be proper order in the society. It advocates for the equal distribution of power amongst all the people in a sovereign state.
The libertarian school advocates for complete elimination of the state or if it is there it has limited power and control over the people. it should simply be meant to protect the citizens of the country from aggressive behaviour that may lead to physical and psychological harm. Libertarianism is divided into different schools based on the ethical understanding of free will. This is the major strengths of the philosophy;
Consequentialist liberalists are known mostly to focus on the economic part of the society. They are known to base their premise on the presence of free markets and private property rights bring economic consequences of increase in wealth and will ultimately improve the living standards of the people (Cantor, 2011). Free markets mean that the state should not interfere but should let the forces of demand and supply to bring the market to equilibrium and it will eventually clear.
Propertarian liberalists believe that people should live in a society that experiences non aggression from the state to the people. According to them aggression is the violation of private property rights of ownership. The state should always protect the people and their properties.
The main weakness of this philosophy is that it fails to take into consideration the aggressive nature of human beings. Without law that is governing people, others would always oppress and misuse others. The law is there to ensure that no one is harmed and treats everybody equally (Cantor, 2011). The state is not always there to hinder the free will of the people but is there to ensure that one man’s free will does not interfere with another’s free will. Morality is relative from one person to another and as much as it controls some of our behaviours it cannot be used to control the behaviours of the entire state.
On my own opinion compatibility is the most correct and convenient philosophy. This is because it looks at society more realistically. Unlike determinism which wants to use laws of physics to explain sociological phenomena, compatibility looks at society from both ends. Determinism is too static and does not give proper flexibility of human behaviour and choice. Libertarianism gives too much freedom to the public and too little to the state, it paints the picture that the state is always there to limit the freedom of choice of the people and that they are better off without it. This is not realistic, that is why there is democracy, to ensure that the government is by the people, from the people and for the people. This ensures that the state does not dictate the actions of the people and there is freedom, however libertarianism argues against that. Compatibility mixes the freedom of the people to make their own choices and the determinism belief that outcomes are predetermined by the actions and preconditions set beforehand. This creates accountability and responsibility of our actions in the long run. With this philosophy people can be more careful in choosing their actions as they know the outcomes and that they will be held responsible.
Compatibilism offers a more rational look at the individual and the society as having freedom of choice that is limited by the fear of the consequences of bad choices. With this in mind, individual will always choose the best alternative has will have good outcome. This is the true definition of freedom coming together with responsibility.
References
Solomon C. Robert, Kathleen Higgins, (2009), Free Will and Determinism, The Big Question; A Short Introduction to Philosophy 8th Edition, Oxford University Press, New York
Hooft g, (2001), How does god play dice; (Pre)- Determinism at the Planck Scale, ArXiv PrePrint
Kant, Emmanuel 1788, (1952), The Critique of Practical Reason, In Great Books of the Western World, Volume 42, University of Chicago, Chicago
Cantor A. Paul, (2012), The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture; Liberty Vs Authority in American Society, University Press of Kentucky
