Free Will and Determinism: A Response to the Problem from the Perspective of Three Philosophical Positions
The concept of free will has been essential in religion and philosophy, but this concept has been opposed to a new one, namely determinism, which is the result of years of scientific progress and the discovery of natural laws. Free will represents the capacity to act independently, or to take decisions based on personal wish, regardless of the pressures one is subject to. On the other hand, determinism is based on the idea that all actions performed by human beings are determined by natural laws and different causal factors, and in fact there is no free will. This idea has disturbed the modern society to a great extent because, if all actions are necessary and unavoidable, people do not deserve punishment and reward for their actions, as they are not responsible for them. These issues have led to the development of three main philosophical directions which try to solve the problem of free will and determinism. While hard determinism, libertarianism and soft determinism all have their important arguments and great insights into the human nature, soft determinism seems to offer the most appropriate answer to the dilemma because it offers the best solution to the real-life dilemma of moral responsibility and this solution is compatible with the standards of the contemporary society.
Free will and determinism cannot be both correct, since they exclude each other, being opposite to one another. The believers in the idea of free will have formulated their defense of the concept by founding a libertarian direction in philosophy. This direction argues that people’s decisions to perform certain actions are freely assumed, and represent acts of will which are not influenced by any determining factors, such as one’s upbringing, peer group, psychological state, and other causes. Thomas Reid was a defender of free will, who proposed the theory of agent causation as a solution to the free will and responsible action account. Thus, “according to Reidian freedom, any action we perform as a result of our act or will to do that action is a free action, provided that we were the agent-cause of the act of will to perform that action”. Thus, according to Reid, as long as individuals directly caused the act that is perform, they are free agents and thus responsible for the act. This is contrary to a situation in which they acted out of obligation, or they had no choice, in which case, they are not considered causal agents and they are not perceived as having had free will while performing the action. This idea is only partially satisfactory because it excludes the fact that, even when acting out of free choice, people may still be the victims of other factors that may have influenced their decisions. While feeling guilt may be a sign that they do not consider themselves as having been obliged to perform an action, people are rarely aware of their own socialization and the processes or factors that have determined them to act in a certain way. The idea of free will is a very old concept which predates determinism, and stands at the basis of religious responsibility for sin. The Christian doctrine holds that God gave people ‘free will’ so they are morally responsible for their actions. This idea is at the basis of the criminal system which punishes people according to their actions.
On the other hand, determinism draws from the recent development in scientific research, which led researchers to discover many of the laws that govern natural processes. While human beings have considered themselves outside natural law, the discoveries in human evolution have shown otherwise. From a philosophical perspective, determinism states that, if the conditions for a certain action to take place are met, than the event will necessarily take place. This idea entails the fact that the laws of nature govern all aspects of life, and there is no room for freedom of choice or agency. This is hard to accept for many people, who believe human beings to occupy a special role in the world, and to perceive their capacity to reason as the most important proof against determinism. In his article, Campbell also rejected the association between free will is the same as rational will However, in order to have free will, a person should be able to choose without any reason, or not to allow any other factors to affect the decision-making process. Of course, this is not possible since human beings are defined by the sum of influences they are subject to since birth.
Derived from the broad concept of determinism, hard determinism is a philosophical stance which argues that, since determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility, this concept should be entirely given up. Moral responsibility, as put forth by the proponents of hard determinists, is inexistent, since individuals cannot be held accountable for their actions, which were a result of the sum of causes that brought them in a particular situation. As Hume explained, while the actions of a criminal may be blamable and immoral, the person is not responsible for them, because they “they proceeded from nothing in him that is durable and constant, and leave nothing of that nature behind them, it is impossible he can, upon their account, become the object of punishment or vengeance” . This means that retributive action against criminals is useless and unfair, since they are not responsible for their acts. While this is logical to the extent that people are not responsible for the sum of life circumstances that caused them to become criminals, allowing criminals to move freely in the society is not a viable solution.
Consequently, the solution put forth by the proponents of soft determinists seems the most reasonable one, and the direction which is most compatible with the tendencies of the contemporary society. Soft determinists resemble hard determinists in the commitment to the rejection of the idea of free will as responsible for people’s deeds, but separate from them in their belief that even in lack of moral responsibility, accountability still makes sense. First, according to them, punishment and reward serve a functional purpose, because it can cause people to either fear or expect the results of their particular choices, thus affecting their character and determining a morally approved type of behavior in the future. While rejecting the punitive purpose of punishment, similarly to hard determinists, soft determinists still consider that punishment for crime has deterrence function, and should be for this reason used by societies in order to prevent crimes, and keep criminals locked away. The punitive function of punishment has the same origin as the concept of free will, being based in the traditional concepts of moral responsibility, which have been inherited from the earliest days of Christianity. The “eye for an eye” religious concept has no meaning if soft determinist views are accepted. Since people are not morally responsible for the actions they were determined to commit, seeking retribution against them is a barbaric act that does not fit the contemporary ideas regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. Instead, focusing on deterrence is a much more modern conceptualization of punishment.
The idea of causality as put forth by determinism makes sense particularly for modern individuals who are aware of the laws of nature, the role of socialization and psychological factors in influencing the personality and decisions of individuals. From this point of view, moral responsibility makes no sense, and the punitive role of punishment is inhumane, considering that the people who committed different crimes were only the victims of the sum of causes that created their disturbed mentality. Soft determinism is even more advanced because it brings forth the idea of moral accountability even in lack of responsibility, as a way for the society to control criminals and to make use of the deterrence effect of punishment.
Bibliography
Campbell, C.A. “Has the Self “Free Will”?, accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil150/campbell.pdf
. D’Holbach, B. The System of nature. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.
Hume, D. An enquiry concerning human understanding , Collier & Son, 1910.
Rowe, W. Two concepts of freedom. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 61, no.1 (1987):43-64.
