Abstract
The issue of free will (freedom) versus determination has been around for a long time. It has continued to be a puzzle for philosophers ever since. Philosophers face such trouble with the issue of freedom versus determination because without freedom morality would be unheard of among the humankind; and such there would be no good, no wrong, or evil. All of humankind’s behavior would be priory determined, and; therefore, man would be left with no choice or creativity (Fischer 1994).
Introduction
Ted Trainer conducted a study in 2010 at the UNSW on the consumption of non renewable resources by first- world countries. In his research, he found out that such first world countries like Australia were living an extraordinarily expensive lifestyle, resource- wise. The study indicated that such countries are utilizing non- renewable energy sources, and other resources at a particularly alarming rate; such countries were found to be depending on approximately four- fifths of the total world’s non- renewable energy sources. Trainer argued in this study that the thought of the rest of the world catching up with such extensive energy utilization was almost impossible. The reason given for such an assumption was because to achieve such a vision, the rest of the world would be required to utilize large amounts of energy resources, like oil that are not available at the moment (Trainer 2010).
The study pointed out, that the idea of the rest of the world living the same lifestyle as Australia and other first world countries would still not be possible even with enough energy sources as serious problems could arise from such lifestyles if the rest of the world were to adopt it. Such challenges like ocean depletion, extinction of species, air and water pollution as well as global warming that have resulted from just a fraction of the world using such an extensive amount of resources; are some of the many signs that such a lifestyle would be disastrous if the rest of the world would catch up with first- world countries. The study was concluded with one crucial question; is the kind of lifestyle being witnessed in the first- world countries ethical (Trainer 2010)?
To answer this question this paper is going to adopt two main frameworks exceedingly common in philosophy; these two are freedom and determinism. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore these two frameworks and apply them accordingly to the above case study so as to come up with a comprehensive answer for the question posed by the case study above.
To achieve the above objective, it is appropriate to first look at what these two frameworks mean. Determinism is a philosophical theory that argues that all actions or behaviors of the human kind are entirely dependent on preceding events or situations, and on ones free will. In philosophy, the theory of determinism is based on the principle that events have to happen for a reason or as a result of something. Many scientists have, for example, carried out a number of studies to find out the reasons behind some behaviors individuals show, and their success in finding some cause for the behaviors have to some extend proven the theory (Williams 1980).
The theory of free will or freedom, on the other hand, is usually associated with reason, in most philosophical discussions, as one of the two activities of the mind that are complementary; reason and will. The will in such situations, hence, is seen as the faculty of decision and choice, while reason is the faculty of argument and deliberation. As a result, the theory argues that a rational action would be as a result of one exercising their freedom of will after they have deliberated on the issue. These two philosophical frameworks can be used to argue against and for the ethical implications of the above case study. Just as well, the two can be used to analyze how the issues presented by the case study can be understood from the two different schools of thought (Bok 1998).
Individuals view themselves as autonomous beings that are free and responsible for the decisions that they make and the actions that result. On one hand, this idea might be true, but it also appears to conflict a number of attitudes and views that we possess of the inevitable acts of nature or of the world in which we live. For example, some individuals are of the idea that laws of nature that are both universal and strict govern us; others are of the idea that an omnipotent God or supreme being is the cause of everything. Such global arguments point out to the idea that everything, including human behavior and actions, is necessitated by a cause, and so they point out to the conflict that results from the claim that individuals are free (Bok 1998).
The philosophical theory of freedom is usually placed within the context of the theoretical arguments about moral responsibility and its nature. This is because of the basic assumption that some form of moral freedom is essential for making individuals accountable for their behavior and actions. It is necessary to note at this point that even those individuals who argue for moral nihilism, and agree with the fact that no one should be morally accountable for their actions, do so because they believe that moral freedom is absent in many aspects of life (Fischer & Ravizza 1993).
As a result, the assumption that everyone must exercise moral freedom plays a central role in the assumptions about the importance of moral blame or praise. For example, it is remarkably easy to blame a child who throws a stone into a house, but exceptionally hard to blame the rock that crashes the TV set; the blame becomes more legitimate if placed on an older individual who throws the rock into the house knowingly or intentionally. In trying to uncover and learn more about the basis of these decidedly different kinds of attitudes, researchers have come across other more fundamental differences in psychology guided by morals, between passion and action, emotion and reason, desire and belief, and compulsion and control (Fischer & Ravizza 1993).
With the above basic understanding of the principles guiding the theory of freedom, it is easy to realize that such effects as global warming, extinction of species, and other related problems brought about by utilizing vast amounts of non- renewable energy sources would be termed as unethical by the freedom theory. This would be because the first- world countries would be held responsible for their actions, and that is utilizing in large amounts non- renewable energy sources without regard for others. The theory of freedom would expect such countries to take care of or to correct their messes by averting the effects of using non- renewable energy sources. The freedom theory would expect such countries to control their utilization of these resources, or to find other alternative resources (Thiroux & Krasemann 2008).
The theory of determinism as already established in the paper indicates that all things that happen do so because of something else that happened in the past. As a result of the past state of the world, and the nature laws, therefore, what takes place now had to happen as it did and nothing could have changed that. The theory, thus argues that, for everything that exists or happens, other known or unknown antecedent conditions determined what that thing is now and could not have caused it to be anything it is but what it is now (Williams 1980).
With such arguments, therefore, this theory would not blame the developed first world countries for the environmental problems the world is experiencing today. This is because, according to the theory, such environmental challenges would have happened any way even without the help of the first- world countries. Unlike the freedom theory, the determinism theory would not term the vast utilization of non- renewable energy sources as unethical. This is because by calling these actions unethical, such countries as Australia, among others, would not be doing anything wrong but necessitating their existence with what is available in nature, the results of which were predetermined and were bound to happen even if these countries could not have intervened (Williams 1980). It is clear form this reasoning, therefore, that his theory does not recognize the moral responsibility argument and that it would not expect the countries utilizing such resources to take responsibility of their actions, and correct or reverse what they have done to the environment.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to analyze the freedom versus determinism frameworks so as to answer the question posed by the case study above. It was found out that the theory of freedom is a definition of the freedom that individuals need to remain morally upright, so as to be able to take moral responsibility for their actions (Fischer 1994). On the other hand, it was found out that the theory of determinism points out that everything and every action that takes place happens because it was previously determined to happen by some other action in the past. This theory, therefore, argues that whatever happens now, could not have turned any different regardless of the present actions because it was determined to happen by past events and laws of nature (Williams 1980). The theory of freedom, therefore, would expect the responsible characters in the case study to take responsibility of their actions, whereas, the theory of determinism would not blame Australia and other similar countries for such environmental calamities as global warming, air and water pollution, and depletion of oceans.
The implication of the theory of freedom, therefore, would be that the countries would take responsibility of their actions and they would reverse the situation to save the environment (Fischer & Ravizza 1993). This would result to a healthier environment, hence a healthier and happier world population. Climate change would be slower, and rainfall would be more consistent, hunger would decrease, and the world populations and species would thrive. The implications of the theory of determinism would, however, be worse. This is because such lack of moral responsibility would result to more vast utilization and, hence, depletion of world’s resources. This would further climate change, increasing the calamities being witnessed today. More species would be extinct; oceans and other water supplies would be depleted; hunger would finish the world’s populations; and the economies of the world would collapse. The world would be a terribly unpleasant place to be.
References
Bok, H 1998, Freedom and Responsibility, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Fischer, J 1994, The Metaphysics of Free Will, Blackwell, Oxford.
Fischer, J & Ravizza, M 1993, Perspectives on Moral Responsibility, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Thiroux, Jacques P & Krasemann, Keith W 2008, Ethics: Theory and Practice, 10th Edition, Prentice Hill, New York.
Trainer, Ted 2010, ‘The Problems of Climate Change Cannot Be Solved by Consumer Societies’, Journal of Cosmology, vol. 8, pp.1928-1930.
Williams, Clifford 1980, Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue, Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis.
