The modern world is one in which any human activity is connected to both cause and repercussion. There is a classic difficulty of free will, which is to reconcile an element of freedom with evident determinism in a world dominated by causes and effects. There are events in the same environment that have a long causal chain, which means that any behavior is the effect of a specific factor.While determinists deny the existence of human freedom to choose their actions, compatibilists hold the claim that determinism by our own will enables us to base our actions on moral responsibility. In other words, compatibilism holds that causal determinism is true, but as well, humans act as free and morally responsible agents. Besides, compatibilists perceive that when there are no external impediments, the actions of rational people are caused by their desires. Since free will is a pertinent requirement of moral responsibility, compatibilism turns out to resolve the issue of free will with the claim that the ability of human beings to choose between different possible actions is compatible with determinism.
Compatibilism and Free-will
In the physical world, there is the understanding that determinism is not entirely true due to the quantum randomness, or the absolute chance. The claim is that the actions performed by individuals are not particularly planned or predetermined as nature sets in the surprise of chance, and thus some actions tend to follow chance. However, chance is not a defense that every event is utterly uncaused or undetermined. At the same time, it does not imply that chance is the primary cause of our actions, or that the actions we execute are random in any given way. If the actions of human beings were driven by random causes or chance, then, the concept of moral responsibility would cease to exist.
As explained by Sartre, any choice that is made devoid of base of support and dictating its own causes is likely to appear absurd and is actually absurd (p. 616). Freedom, according to Satre, is a choice of its being, but on the contrary, not the foundation of its being. Similarly, freedom is the ability to choose but not the freedom to not choose (Sartre 618-619). According to the dogma of compatibilism, there is a redefinition of freedom, hence a complete change of the causal chain. As claimed by compatibilists, even though our will is determined by events that have already happened as per the causal chain, the same will is responsible for causing as well as determining our course of actions in future.
Most compatibilists deny the reality of chance in order to avoid the difficulty of their position or argument. At the same time, philosophers attempt to find anything that will be found to be wrong with quantum mechanical indeterminism that bears the issue of chance in human actions. Human beings act in ways that attempt to reflect moral responsibility, and therefore, much value is placed on being accountable for ones’ actions (Haven 92). Compatibilism is determinism, but with some modification to suit appearances and also avoid confusion in language use. The position of compatibilists is taken to fulfill the need for some idea of responsibility and accountability which is associated with human behavior (Vincent and DePoel 162). In this case, compatibility is used to resolve the problem of free will as humans are held accountable for their actions, and they are liable to consequences if they act under the directive of their will and are not coerced by external influence.
Determinism counterargument to Compatibilitism’s resolution to free-will issue
Determinism holds the position that each event happens as a result of previous conditions, events, and laws of nature. The dogma of determinism directly conflicts with the view of freedom. According to the idea of free will, individuals have the potential to choose whichever course of action to take, and they further act considering their moral responsibility as well as being accountable for their actions. From the determinist’s perspectives, individuals always avoid circumstances, actions, or situations that are unpleasant or painful. Therefore, one has to be exposed to a particular event so as to either like or hate it in future (Dubin 1). As a result, there is only one path that leads to the present, and as well, a single path is responsible for leading on from it.
Conclusion
The major counterargument with determinism is that it views libertarianism (free will) as a form of incompatibilism. Determinists also claim that there exists the concept of actions being caused as individuals live in an ordered universe and that any transformation is as a result of natural law. In that light, determinism argues that it is possible to predict the future in principle and that the past events can be explained as per the same laws (Haven 87). According to determinism, the future is predetermined and thus predictable; hence the controversy surrounding the essence of blame, reward, punishment as well as moral responsibility; all which are associated with free will.
Works Cited
Dubin, Mark. "Free Will or Determinism - A Conundrum." Philosophy, 1994, pp. 1-7.
Haven, E F. "Introduction to Philosophy." Philosophy, 2007, pp. 1-113.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Being and Nothingness." New York City: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
Vincent, Nicole A, and Ibo V DePoel. "Moral responsibility: Beyond free will and determinism." Dordrecht: Springer, Cop, 2011.
