The dispute of free will versus determinism always bothered humanity. There were numerous arguments posed be either side of the discussion, but there still seems to be no end to it. David Hume is one of the opponents of free will and in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he explains the "doctrine of necessity" with which he makes his point in this debate. In this essay, I will explain Hume's argument and support it.
In his opposition to free will, Hume starts by jumping into the discussion and saying that the whole debate about free will was decided long ago and that philosophical discussion around this topic is only a verbal dispute. He explains the "doctrine of necessity" (Hume 82). Hume asserts that what we are used to considering as cause-effect relationship or necessity in nature consists of the conjunction of similar bodies and consequent inference from one another (Hume 83). He proves this from the opposite – if there would be nothing similar in nature and all events happened in a new way and had no resemblance to each other, then no connection between them or cause and effect would be known by us. But as we may see, many events in the world surrounding us are similar to each other and based on their similarity we can infer the connection between them. Hume proceeds with showing that the same is characteristic to human actions. He assumes that throughout centuries and cultures, human nature has always been the same. The same actions are driven by the same incentives. The Ancient Greeks and Romans felt the same emotions and strived for the same feelings as we now do. These motives may be slightly different in different cultures and different ages, but they still lie behind the actions of humans. Moreover, our lives are built on our employment of this knowledge. We interact with others on the basis of our expectations that certain actions to others will yield specific behavior from them. Hume suggests that sometimes it may seem that some actions cannot be explained by any motives. But he responds to that by comparing this case to the treatment of illness – there is always some reason opposing any given change, it is that sometimes it may be remote or hidden. Then, eventually, Hume suggests that free will can only be considered as the ability to act or not act according to own will, which does not contradict his doctrine of necessity (Fieser).
I support Hume's position concerning free will and will defend it against some objections. The most popular objection to necessity (or support of free will) is the notion that humans have power over their actions and life. Or at least they want to. This claim is highly intuitive, but it does not stand any real power when exposed to cause and effect relationship. As Hume pointed out, all our actions have motives behind them. Essentially, the point that our actions are driven by specific incentives is commonly agreed. So, if free will consists in acting deliberately without no motive lying behind the action, then would be either an error or an exception from the mentioned principle. But if we look closer to these exceptions we may see that these exceptions still do not come out of thin air. The initially unexplainable actions may be driven by undisclosed or distant desires, the desires are caused by either other deeper desires or instinct. And this causal chain can be traced back infinitely. It is often considered that, if we know that we do not have free will we might act in contrary and actually exercise it. But this is also the display of necessity as these actions are still driven by a known incentive. And when someone naively asserts that he exercises his free will by acting in contrary to what he initially intended, his actions are predetermined by the motive to act oppositely and are not at all uncaused. Ultimately, Hume’s doctrine of necessity stands a level above the arguments trying to disprove it, as all the instances of human behavior are explained by it and cannot oppose it.
References
Fieser, James. "Hume, David". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 May 2016.
Hume, David. Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding. 1st ed. London: N.p., 1748. Web. 13 May 2016.
