Psychological theories claim that human beings are the products of their environment and they have no control over the influences of this environment. The argument by empiricism theorists that human behaviors are pre-determined by an individual’s past has led to numerous debates with the proponent of the ideology claiming that environment shapes the human mental activity and therefore their behaviors. On the other hand, those opposing the claim argue that humans are logical and have a free will which can enable them to choose their courses of actions and act in a different direction than how the environmental stimuli could be suggesting. The paper will delve in an analysis of whether the surrounding determines the human actions and behaviors or if people have a freedom to choose their course of action that is free from the influence of the environmental stimuli.
My position
I believe free will-determinism is a valid ideology that should be used to explain the behaviors and actions of human beings. People are free and not determined by any outside stimuli and should be viewed as responsible beings both culturally and personally who should be held accountable for any actions they commit. According to the argument by Amy Smith, a theoretical psychologist, she claims that the environment does not determine the mental activity of an individual but instead people act due to their active interpretation of the things they perceive in their surroundings. Smith believes this claim is valid because the mind has an active role contrary to what Bargh and Chartrand claim and do not just absorb the environmental stimuli through the environmental-perception-behavior. The mind instead gives order and structure to the objects it perceives in the environment. Human beings should be viewed as free will agents because they are rational beings who can make choices in their environment regardless of what the environmental stimulus might be suggesting (Smith, 200).
The objects our sensory systems encounter in the environment is not imprinted on the passive mind that will eventually direct human behaviors. However, the perceived stimulus is made meaningful in the interpretive framework of the brain and this is what then leads to the action of an individual. Therefore, objects seen in the environment cannot be considered as stimuli as claimed by the determinists unless it is made meaningful by an active mind. For this reason, I agree with her that automatic behaviors can be explained in a non-deterministic approach. Our legal system recognizes that we are agents of our actions and we initiate them, and because human beings are rational creatures with the ability to make the right choices, they must be held accountable for their activities. The behaviors exhibited in individuals are initiated by the same people internally and not by any outside factors. For instance, in the case study of Joe, his reaction in response to the dangerous driver is because he actively brings “an entire interpretive world-view to his driving experience that tacitly affects how he understands driving, driving etiquette and other drivers” (Smith, 204). The free will deterministic view has been recognized by the legal system and is embedded into the law and requires each person to be accountable for his or her actions because people have a choice regarding their thoughts and they initiate their actions and not stimulated by outside sources.
Similarly, the goals that we choose as human beings are directed by our personal choices and not the environmental stimuli that we encounter. Regarding continental philosophies, the mind does not take in the stimuli from the environment passively but instead actively interpret what individuals encounter in their surroundings. The mind put order and structure to whatever it perceives in the environment, and this perception is not a stimulus until an active mind puts a meaning upon it. For this reason, it is clear that environmental stimuli do not shape thoughts. Perception is not as transparent as claimed by the empiricists because different people when exposed to the same stimuli they will respond differently because of the varied abilities to interpret. The explanation of active interpretation shows that the mind and the environmental stimuli affect each other and therefore, it is clear that the environmental stimuli cannot determine cognitions and human actions.
According to the argument by the hermeneuticists and rationalists, the behaviors and actions of individuals are not due to the accumulation of past sensory experiences. The mind is not wholly dependent on environmental triggers because human beings are intelligent beings with brains with the ability to structure and organize the experiences they encounter in their lifetime. Considering that the brain actively interprets what it perceives, it is true that people can think of other alternative courses of actions that are right other than what the environmental stimuli suggest and this makes human beings accountable for their behaviors. As a rational human being, we have the possibilities to understand different circumstances through active interpretations of the mind and therefore able to change, and these make us active agents with free will and freedom to make choices. This is because the human brain is active and unthematized, implicit and tacit with the capability of interpreting the environmental stimuli. The interpretation process of the mind occurs outside the conscious human awareness, and this leads to an automatic response to the stimuli however this automaticity is automatically voluntary and not as Bargh and Chartrand claim. Therefore it is true that human beings only respond after the minds interpretive framework has obtained a meaning to the perceived stimuli even though they are not aware of the active functioning and interpretation of the mind.
Opposing Position
The opposing side claims that people do not make their own choices based on their intentions, but instead, they do so due to the influence that environment have on their automatic cognitive process. According to Chartrand and Bargh (190), an individual is likely to perform an action that he or she has been exposed to since such perceived response is involuntary. These psychologists believe that we have no control over our actions because the outside factors initiate them, and for this reason, environmental stimulus we encounter will determine our mental activity. In their argument, this group of philosophers claims that since perceptual is automatic and not under intentional or conscious control, an individual cannot be held accountable for his or her actions. As far as automatic determinism is concerned, environmental triggers shape the goals of individuals. The goals are represented mentally and therefore like any other mental representation; they are activated and set into motion by environmental stimuli.
The proponents of automatic determinism claim that what human beings perceive in their surrounding determine their behavior, thoughts, and emotional responses. The theory states that an individual’s response to environmental stimuli in a sequence of environment-perception-behavior and these behaviors are not in any way shaped by conscious choices. Therefore since people’s emotional reactions to specific environmental stimuli and the resultant actions are involuntary and uncontrollable they cannot be held responsible. These individuals are not in any way accountable for their actions, but the perceived object is.
Refutation of the Opposing Position
The philosophy of automatic determinism is not realistic since their interpretation of automaticity is biased because instead of testing if the environmental stimuli determine the actions of people, they focus on how the environment stimulates human behaviors. However, numerous theories give a better interpretation of automaticity than this. The claim that the actions of human beings are involuntary and non-conscious because they are triggered by environmental stimuli that the individuals are exposed to is not right. Human beings are rational beings, and their minds actively interpret what they perceive and have the free will to make decisions and choose a correct course of action. Therefore the claim that they have no control over their actions and cannot be accountable for them is a misconception and invalid.
Similarly, since human brains have the ability of actively interpreting as well as structuring and organizing the experiences they encounter, it is clear that people are not dependent on the environmental stimuli as stated by Bargh and Chartrand (193). By being able to think and act differently from what is suggested by the environmental factors, human beings can direct their emotions, behaviors, judgments, and goals because they are active agents and not passive responders to external factors whose actions are directed by the environment. Furthermore, the empiricist views implying that perception is transparent is not valid because two people exposed to the similar stimulus will interpret it differently an indication that mind and environmental stimuli affect each other and therefore it cannot be right to claim that the environmental triggers can direct behavior and cognition.
Position Summary
Human beings are rational and intelligent, and their mind can actively interpret the experiences they encounter in their environment. The mind structures and organizes the experiences they perceive, and this makes human beings able to understand the situation and choose the best alternative course of action. It is for this reason that human beings are said to have free will to make choices, and therefore direct their behavior and actions which makes them accountable for whatever they do. Just like behavior and cognition, people also choose their goals. Stimuli are made meaningful by the active interpretation of the mind and not taken in passively as in the argument of the empiricists, and this indicates that these environmental stimuli are not transparent and therefore does not control human thoughts. Consequently, it is clear that human beings have free will to choose their course of action and should be accountable for their activities and behavior.
Reflection on Revision
In the last few weeks, my project has undergone tremendous development based on my instructor’s comments and my classmates' peer revision. During revision, my objective was to come up with an outstanding paper that is free from grammatical errors, and that is in line with the requirements outlined in the rubric. In the final paper, I have tried to be more focused on providing an in-depth explanation concerning freewill side as compared to how it was in the draft paper to make it more appealing and persuasive to the readers. The comments that led to these changes came from my readers; the most critical feedback that I got was that I should be more focused on my side and gives an in-depth explanation concerning freewill side. If I am given another chance to rework on this paper, I will do my best to structure my explanation in the best way possible that will help my readers understand the concept of free will with ease. Furthermore, I will work hard to perfect my grammar and persuasive writing skills.
Work Cited
Bargh J and Chartrand T. (1999). The Unbearable Automaticity of Being. American Psychologist. 1999.
Smith F. Automaticity: the Free Will Determinism-Debate Continued. American Psychologist. 2006
