The free will-determinism debate has lasted for decades, where theorists and scholars seek to explore the human nature by questioning the ideas of human freedom and choice. Free will and determinism are two contradicting positions that focus on explaining the factors that influence human behavior. Determinism is a doctrine that maintains that preceding factors or causes that are external to the human will cause all events that occur in the universe, including human activities and behaviors. Free will, on the other hand, refers to a philosophical proposition that maintains that humans have the capacity or power to choose how they act by evaluating different alternatives and selecting the most appropriate action. The concept of free will illustrates that humans are self-determined since they capable of acting independently of divine, social, and natural restraints in particular situations. The key implication of determinism is that people cannot be punished or held accountable for their actions; the implication enhances our understanding of free will, by demonstrating that free will exists to ensure that all rational people are held responsible for their actions, therefore promoting justice in the society.
Determinism
The doctrine of determinism holds that all events are determined by particular causes that are external to the human will. Some philosophers who support the doctrine argue that human beings lack free will; therefore, it is impossible to hold them morally responsible for their activities. Determinists further maintain that behavior is easily predictable since it is influenced by past occurrences. According to determinists, the universe is ordered, which indicates that all events occur in a law-like regularity. According to Atmanspacher and Bishop (2014, p.137) the determinists’ view implies that in principle, all past events are explainable, while the future can be predicted using the existing laws of science. The theory that maintains that determinism is true is defined as hard determinism, and it holds that no human being is free or possesses free will. Hence, no human being can act completely freely since all human choices, desires, and behaviors emanate from external factors.
Moreover, determinists argue that actions can only be free if they are as a result of an act of will, desire, or choice that does not have a cause. In this context, the choosing mechanism or will is considered to initiate a particular action. According to the hard determinists, freedom can only occur if it occurs independent of causes, uncaused, or if it is entirely disconnected from the past events. The hard determinists further argue that for one to make free choices, he or she must be a first mover, the source of creative activity, or a new beginning (Atmanspacher & Bishop, 2014, p.90). However, such a scenario is impossible since all human actions are motivated by sources that are beyond their control, including desires and wants. The human wants and desires emanate from the human character, which is shaped by heredity and the environment, factors that are beyond the human control. Science and common sense provide the evidence for determinism; the two concepts hold that all events have a cause, for instance, all diseases have causes such as viruses or bacteria among others.
Free Will
Free will refers to the ability to examine different potential courses of action and selecting the best alternative unimpeded. Unlike determinism, which is founded on the concepts of common sense and science, free will is founded on the sentiments of guilt, the biased experiences of freedom, and the universal assumptions of responsibility for individual actions that underlie the concepts of punishment, reward, incentive, and law, as well the revealed religion. According to Blackmore et al.( 2013, p.105), proponents of free will argue that human beings have a choice in the way they act, an idea that is based on the assumption that humans are self-determined or they can freely choose their behavior. For instance, people can freely choose as to whether to indulge in crime or not, unless they are not mentally sound or in case of children who cannot make sound decisions. Free will does not support the idea that human behavior is random; however, the concept holds that human behavior is free from the causal influences of the past occurrences. Hence, the idea of free will illustrates that individuals are responsible for their actions. The group of philosophers that claims that human beings possess free actions are known as libertarians (Blackmore et al. 2013, p.27).
Proponents of the idea of free will maintain that human behavior is complex and unpredictable. List (2014, p.156) postulates that humans possess ultimate freedom of choice, a factor that makes their behavior unpredictable externally. The freedom of choice thus forms the essence of the human personalities that further determine behavior. The philosophical perspective provides two key approaches through which free will is explained, including the psychological and the ethical approach. Will, if it is viewed as free power, is defined by the proponents of free will as the power of self-determination. Self, in this context, refers to an abiding rational being rather than a single or series of mental states, which acts as the cause and subject of the mental states. Therefore, the proponents distinguish between spontaneous, voluntary acts in the wide sense and voluntary acts in the strict sense.
The key element that distinguishes a non-voluntary act from a voluntary act is the presence of a self-conscious advertence that makes one aware that he or she is choosing or agreeing to desire a particular act. Spontaneous desires or acts are opposed to external compulsion; however, they cannot be defined as morally free acts (Willmott 2016 p.63). Spontaneous actions may be essential outcomes of the nature of the agents involved. For instance, actions of insane people, young children, and those of lower animals are not morally free actions. From this perspective, the key characteristic of free volition is the aspect of choice, where a person can choose to reject or ratify, refuse or accept to execute a particular action. Hence, it is the act of approval or consent that transforms a simple involuntary desire or impulse into free volition and makes a person accountable for it. Therefore, a train of volition or thought that is deliberately initiated and later continued spontaneously is considered a free action since one has a choice, and a free choice to execute the action, which makes the person responsible for the action.
Free Will from the Ethical Point of View
The arguments of determinism conflict with the fundamental convictions and moral notions of humankind. The universality of the major moral ideas, including justice, moral obligation, duty, merit, and responsibility remains undisputable since they are present in the consciousness of all normal human beings (Armstrong 2014, p.144). Moreover, the manner in which the moral ideas are understood universally implies that human beings have absolute control over some of their acts. Further, they are capable of self-determination in some situations, thus indicating that all the human volitions are not the inevitable outcomes of circumstances. However, children and insane people are exempted from judgment since they lack moral freedom, and therefore their actions are motivated by events or motives that act on them.
Free Will from the Psychological Perspective
Consciousness is responsible for testifying to a person’s moral freedom. The judgment of whether a person executed a particular act freely or not only occurs after the action is executed. Acts that are freely executed are easily distinguished from those that an individual is not responsible or free to execute. The key objection to the psychological arguments is that although human beings can be conscious of what they do, they are not conscious of their ability to do other things (Atmanspacher & Bishop 2014, p.23). However, psychologists hold that human beings are conscious of both the mode of the act and the act, illustrating that they are not only conscious of what they do but also how they do it. Consciousness, therefore, confirms that humans can resist strong motives, strengthen one set of motives, and choose their desired motive freely and actively. Therefore, from the psychological point of view, the mind or self is the cause of action, since free volition does not involve external influences or causes.
Implications of Determinism on the Understanding of Free Will
Determinism maintains that all human actions are influenced by external factors, therefore indicating that people cannot be held accountable for their actions. The consequences of determinism are not only severe but also dangerous in that the doctrine leaves no room or annihilates human morality. The base intention of upholding determinism is often to justify one’s wrongs or to excuse a person’s preferences, which may be contradicting the generally accepted moral standards in a society (Weatherford 2017, p. 220). A crucial condition for blaming, holding a person accountable or punishing the person for a particular action is that the person must be rational and he or she must have done it freely. In this context, therefore, since determinism holds that human beings never act freely, people are not punishable, blameworthy, or responsible for their actions. From this perspective, the arguments presented by determinists illustrate that free will exists since given that sometimes people are punishable, blameworthy, and responsible for their actions, determinism is, therefore, a false idea.
Additionally, the theory of moral responsibility demonstrates the need to hold people accountable for their mischief or problems. Such a claim illustrates that free will exists. Hence, it would be irrational to state that a person, whose problems are as a result of external factors, should be held responsible for the problems. Hence, determinism is not applicable in societies, where people are responsible for treating others in an ethical and just manner (Weatherford 2017, p. 221). However, determinism plays a critical role in facilitating our understanding of the influence of external factors on our behavior. One of the key factors that influence human behavior externally is genetics. A person’s genetic make-up, which may influence such aspects as IQ plays a critical role in influencing behavior (Weatherford 2017, p. 205). Another factor pertains to the environment that a person grows in; for instance, children brought up by drug-abusing and violent parents are likely to become violent or abuse drugs when they grow up.
However, Armstrong (2014, p.59) postulates that adults of sound mind can distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore, it is upon them to decide whether to become violent or abuse drugs or do otherwise, illustrating that human behavior is heavily reliant on free will despite being influenced by external forces since humans can make rational choices. People are only held accountable for voluntary actions. According to Aristotle, an action may fail to be voluntary if it is as a result of ignorance or compulsion (Armstrong 2014, p.317). Ignorance may be in the case where a person lacks knowledge on the potential implications of an action. Compulsion, on the other hand, occurs if one is forced to perform an action that is unacceptable or unethical. For instance, if a reckless driver pushes another driver out of the road and causes him or her to injure passengers or passersby, the driver who is pushed out of the road cannot be held morally responsible for the injuries since he was compelled into causing the injuries.
Conclusion
Determinism and free will are two conflicting concepts in that while determinism argues that human behavior is entirely externally influenced, free will maintains that humans possess the capacity to make decisions. Thus they are responsible for their actions or behavior. The key implication of determinism is that people lack control over their behavior since it is influenced by external factors; therefore, they cannot be held accountable for any of their actions. The implication enhances our understanding of free will by demonstrating that determinism is incapable of ensuring respect for individual rights in the society. Determinism demonstrates that individuals can do whatever they like without the risk of punishment or being held responsible because the factors that influence their actions are beyond their control. However, the determinists’ arguments are faulty since all rational human beings demonstrate a deep understanding of the actions that are considered morally right or wrong. Therefore, human beings have the ability to choose between morally wrong or right actions, which demonstrate the existence of free will.
Reference List
Armstrong, W. (2014). Moral psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press.
Atmanspacher, H. and Bishop, R., 2014. Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinry Perspectives on Determinism. Andrews UK Limited.
Blackmore, S., Clark, T.W., Hallett, M., Haynes, J.D., Honderich, T., Levy, N., Nadelhoffer, T., Nichols, S., Pauen, M., Pereboom, D. and Pockett, S., 2013. Exploring the illusion of free will and moral responsibility. Lexington Books.
List, C., 2014. Free will, determinism, and the possibility of doing otherwise. Noûs, 48(1), pp.156-178.
Weatherford, R. 2017. The implications of determinism. Taylor and Francis: London.
Willmott, C. 2016. Biological determinism, free will and moral responsibility : Insights from genetics and neuroscience. Springer Nature: Switzerland.
