Soft Determinism
Do I have free will, or is every action I make predetermined? This question has concerned me for a long while. It has been the topic of many family dinner conversations, a topic of research, and a question in many prayers. I believe that this question concerns many people, since finding an answer has been the source of much literature, thinking, and religion. I have, after much thought, arrived at the conclusion of Soft Determinism - the Principle of Universal Causality, that for everything that exists or happens there is a cause, is true, but this principle is compatible with the Condition of Free Action. By Condition of Free Action I mean that a person is in control of his own actions (is the source of them) and that person, in at least some circumstances, could have chosen to do an action other than the one actually performed.
Determinism itself seems almost obviously to be true. Can one really think of an action that does not have a cause? Or can one think of something that exists that does not come from something else? True, we cannot know the cause of every action, and therefore it might be wrong to rule out the possibility of an action without cause. But, it certainly seems that all things are causally determined - we just might not know the cause. This is the basis of determinist thinkers, from Paul Holbach to A. J. Ayer: for every action there is a cause.
Now we move into the problems of motives. One might argue that if a person does a genuinely altruistic action, then that person is acting without self interest, only wanting to do the action, not wanting to do the action for personal pleasure. This would almost seem to be an example of an existence (the desire) without a reason or cause. But...
... middle of paper ...
...o choose and follow, without constraint, the right or wrong course of action. Now, Adam could have chosen not to eat the fruit, and if so, I would not have used this example (and neither, I believe, would the Bible). To broaden the idea, if humans had never knowingly made bad decisions, then the argument for freedom of action would be impossible to prove. However, I know that I have knowingly made bad decisions. In doing so, I exercised the negative aspect of freedom. I had reasons for taking either course of action, and I even had a reason for making the bad decision, but I chose. Thus, I have arrived at the conclusion that Soft Determinism - the compatibility of Determinism and Free Action - is true.
Works Cited:
Feinberg, John. "God Ordains All Things." Predestination and Free Will. Eds. David and Randall Basinger. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Evaluation of the Success of the Evacuation of Children from Major British Cities during World War II
Why the British Government Decided to Evacuate Children from Britain's Major Cities in the Early Years of the Second World War
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
Moving forward, according to John Cowburn author of Free Will, Predestination and Determinism (2008), “determinism is the philosophical view is that all humans’ actions are predetermined and that every event an individual encounters can be explained.” (p. 144)” Thus, every event that has happened in one’s life, happens as a result of previous events.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Soft determinism attempts to make the disagreeing data of determinism and freedom compatible. The theory of soft determinism rests on three fundamental claims: (1) the deterministic concept that human behaviour is causally determined; (2) that there is freedom in voluntary behaviour, so long as there is no physical impediment or constraint upon the action; and (3) that the cause of the voluntary behaviour (which is possible in the absence of impediments or constraints) is an internal state of the agent of the action. According to soft determinism, therefore, we are responsible for our actions on o...
“There is a continuum between free and unfree, with many or most acts lying somewhere in between.” (Abel, 322) This statement is a good summation of how Nancy Holmstrom’s view of free will allows for degrees of freedom depending on the agent’s control over the situation. Holmstrom’s main purpose in her Firming Up Soft Determinism essay was to show that people can have control over the source of their actions, meaning that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and because of this they have free will. She also tried to show that her view of soft determinism was compatible with free will and moral responsibility. While Holmstrom’s theory about the self’s being in control, willingness to participate, and awareness of an act causes the act to be free, has some merit, her choice to incorporate soft determinism ultimately proved to invalidate her theory.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
Kane, Robert. "Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Safer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 425-437. Print.
Soft determinism touts itself as a looser form of determinism; it maintains that a modicum of freedom can exist within determinism. For the soft determinist, the personality or character of the agent is still derived from environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary factors. The agent’s actions are still a result of this character. However, the soft determinist maintains that we are free because freedom is not a freedom from all causes but is a freedom from some causes. One might argue that there was no compulsion in the action of the killer; he knows the consequences of his actions and is aware that murder is wrong. If someone held a gun to his head and told him to stab the other individual, we could not rightly state that his actions were free if there is some external compulsion. His personality is created within a context that instills certain societal values and norms of behavior...
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
If there is no room for choice or chance then everything happens without an individuals responsibility of doing something, mean that people can not be held to their actions, because individuals are not able to chose their actions no matter how virtuous or viscous they may be, as all their actions are all already predetermined. The idea of hard determinism refutes the idea of if-then statements because human choices and actions are not taken into factor because under hard determinism humans are not responsible for our actions. Hard determinism received its greatest influence from the physicist Isaac Newton, and his studies in physics and his idea of the universe as “matter in motion”. People who believe in Newton’s “matter in motion” theory who also believe in hard determinism applied the idea to everything in the universe, that everything is just matter in motion including humans, who need to obey the laws of nature just as anything else needs