Exposition of competing positions:
Hard determinism argues that due to the fact that determinism is true, and there can be no choices that result in any specific outcome for the individual, there is no need to engage in moral discourse. The idea that all things are the result of abstract causes that cannot be effected in any way presents the idea that there is no need to assess the consequences of action. This is due to the fact that a person’s nature is primarily determined by their ultimate destiny. The principle of free will does not exist therefore, due to the fact that all actions are predetermined, or determined to follow a set rule or path, there is no need for the individual to be morally accounted for the actions that they take. Due to the fact that an individual can only be held morally accountable for an action made through the freedom of choice, hard determinism dictates that there is no utility in pursuing moral discourse.
Soft determinism, similarly to hard determinism, argues that determinism is true, and specific causal factors dictate the outcomes and consequences of reality. One of the major differences between them and hard determinists, however, is that soft determinism has does not posit that moral accountability and determinism are completely incompatible with one another. Soft determinists argue that, while in the case of freedom of will there is no mechanism for accountability, there is some sense that the actions that people take can lead to specific outcomes. Soft determinists reject the notion that people are only accountable for free actions. In this sense, while a person may not have had the choice of acting in an immoral or unethical way, they should still be held accountable. The is primarily related to how soft determinists define the idea of what it means to be “free” and the difference that they express in relation to senses of freedom and their definitions. While it might be maintained by some that freedom is only truly freedom if there exist no causal laws that require the outcomes. However, soft-determinists maintain that freedom can also be considered in relation to an individual’s compulsions or desires. Soft-determinists view moral action as those that are non-compulsory and free from personal or individual desire.
Liberatarianism expresses the idea of freedom of choice in accordance with the will. The decisions that people make are essentially an exercise of the will and so also represent the underlying self-causation that they have the potential for. This is the opposite of determinism, expressing the relationship between personal choice and the eventual outcomes that they result in. In this way, responsibility for actions rely solely on the individual who committed them The will is the ultimate liberator, which allows people the freedom to choose between moral and immoral action. Rather than obeying specific psychological, physiological, or social cues, the decisions that people make and the actions that they take are self-determined, or expressed from within. Liberatarianism takes a directly opposite approach of determinism. Acts are wholly original and spontaneous, and not simply the result of other pre-existing mechanisms.
Comparative analysis:
While hard determinism expresses the need to promote the importance of causes as a mitigating principle by which all acts and effects take place, the underlying conception of moral responsibility is completely discarded. This is due to the notion that actions are unable to be considered in relation to the individual who takes them. Instead, they are the result of pre-existing processes which work to undermine the capacity for the individual to freely make choices. While scientific law has generally established the truth of determinism, the level to which people’s actions can have deterministic outcomes themsleves should be assessed. A lack of choice in this sense dictates a lack of responsibility or obligation, which undermines the nature of moral authority. This inability to express the personal obligations of the individual seems to have been attempted to be resolved by those who promote the idea of soft determinism. In contrast to hard determinism, soft determinism relies on a reconception of the ideas of will and action. They expect accountability and obligation to be derived from the establishment of a new definition of what it means to be “free”. Freedom of choice and action may not exist, but the freedom to either act on or deny personal desire does give the individual some form of freedom. This notion is an essential aspect of the soft-determinist view of morality and the ability to hold people accountable for the actions that they take. Liberatarianism expresses a completely distinct form of moral choice that is rooted in the expectation for moral action in relation to the responsibility brought by freedom of choice. This is the complete rejection of the notion of determinism as presented by the other thinkers. Morals are an essential aspect of the notion of free-will. They are what reign in the consequences of action taken outside the bounds of responsible expression. Rather than attempting to redefine or reconfigure the notion of freedom and will, as in soft determinism, the philosophical position attempts to give weight back to the notions of obligation and responsibility (Unit 6, 2016).
Argument:
Liberatarianism expresses the only position that is able to establish the need for accountability without radically redefining the conception of “free”. Rather than presenting a compromise between free will and personal moral action, the philosophic argument shifts the weight of importance from the cause to the action. In doing so, the mechanism for moral incentive lies in the personal will and the accountability for action lies in the decisions that people make when they are making those actions. This decouples the inability to assign responsibility for action with the inability to conceive of “free” as anything other than the ability to either desire or not desire and allows for a more grounded moral framework that seems to challenge the assignment of value to causes alone. The most effective principle of this argument is the distinction that it is able to afford between good and bad actions. Within soft determinism there is an element of moral consequence but the difference between what is morally right and wrong becomes indistinct and can only be distinguished through consideration of the amount to which a person “desires” a specific end. This capacity for moral accountability seems to make it more morally just within the framework of ethical and philosophic consideration.
References
“Determinism and the Problem of Free Will.” (2016) Unit 6. Phil 1200.
