Free-Will Vs Determinism

Within and beyond philosophy, lies the tension between the universal concept of free will and determinism. From a general standpoint, individuals are convinced that they rule and govern their own lives. Free will embodies that individuals have the freedom to dictate their own future. It asserts that our minds and essence have the capacity to choose our own actions and direction, whilst also choose alternative paths. Determinism on the other hand, suggests that life is a product of necessity and causation, built upon the foundations of the past and laws of nature. It threatens the thesis of free will by positing that the world and everything in it is knowable through strict cause and effect relationships - eliminating the possibility of freedom

and choice. Despite this confliction, there may be a solution to the tension between both views. Compatiblism is an alternate thesis that recognizes both free will and determinism to co-exist. In this paper, I will discuss the tension between free will and determinism and how compatibilism aims to resolve it.

Firstly, free will is the human characteristic that releases us from the constraint of God, necessity and fate. It enables human beings to design and govern their lives at their own discretion and to create a future unbound by external or prior controls. John Searle (1984), puts forth the idea that a ‘conviction of freedom’ is built into each human being. He asserts that each thing we do carries the conviction that we could be doing something else. For example, a university student may have the choice to select a philosophy unit in their first year. In the process of deciding whether they will pursue philosophy or not, they are also aware that they can select another unit altogether. Whichever path the student takes, they are conscious of the alternate future at risk. Ultimately, this depicts a crossroad for every individual choice.

According to Searle, this conviction of freedom cannot be abandoned. He claims that, ‘conviction is built into every normal, conscious intelligent action.” Whilst he argues this, he goes on to say that although conviction is vital and unavoidable, it is also unreasonable. He strengthens this claim by highlighting the incompatibility of free will and science - namely physical laws. The Laws of Nature posits that everything that is physical, made up of cells, neurons and atoms, is governed by fixed law. The human brain being made up of matter that constitute of cells which are made up of atoms - indicates that the brain is a physical structure. This raises a threat to free will, since if the brain is a physical structure, then the human mind must logically follow physical laws. Science therein states that the mind is an ephemeral by-product of physics; and that our minds are reducible to only the brain. The conscious components that create our capacities to “practice” free will, are nothing but causal consequences of micro processes in the brain.

Accordingly, the thesis of determinism strengthens this concept of a physics-driven mind. Determinism centres around the idea that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature (Kane 2009). It is a thesis that every event, including human action is ultimately determined by causes outside and unrelated to free will. In likeness to Natural Law, determinism is a predictive thesis, characterized by causation and certainty, therefore eliminating the possibility of freedom and choice. Determinism says that a particular future already exists, and what only awaits is its unfolding. Consequently, choices that individuals make no longer affect the future, since one already exists. This further corresponds with the Laws of Causation. The Laws of Causation posits that everything that happens, leads to a set future because we cannot change the past. It is a principle that acknowledges every change in nature to have resulted by some cause. This is supported in the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, in which he writes “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant 1781). Causation, Nature and Determinism thus rule out the possibility of free will, since at any given time, be it the past or present, all three theses suggest there is already one set future.

Thus there lies a blatant tension between the concept of free will and determinism. If determinism is true, then free will must be false. And if free will is true, then determinism must be false. Free will posits that individuals are able to choose from an array of alternative possibilities, and ultimately conduct their life according to their own volition. Yet determinism, like the Laws of Nature and Causation, tells us that the world is structured by prior effects. Because determinism lies in accordance with the Laws of Nature and science which are fixed and constant, the essence of free will is discarded as free will requires choice and improbability.

From my standpoint I initially accept the thesis of determinism, for in this world it seems that almost everything is governed by some external force that ensures the universe runs accordingly. Whether that is by God, the Laws of Causation, or Nature - the universe seems too complex of a creation to be functioning out of arbitrariness. Natural Law tells us that the universe had a definite beginning in time, and that this beginning was “finely tuned”. The “Big Bang” was not a random explosion, rather an exceedingly organized, delicately balanced event. Today, science is further discovering that everything from the size, shape, and age of our galaxy, the moon and the mass of the earth, to the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere... All of this delicate balancing, and awesome precision - makes us human beings possible. Scientists call this fine-tuning “anthropic”, taken from the context of anthropology - the study of human beings. The continuity of this precision, ultimately leads me to believe that the universe is seemingly all piled up to provide human beings life. And that it continues to function as if it were tailor-made for us. It is impossible then to think that the universe functions by chance, whim or impulse. Whilst I find that the universe runs according to incredibly intricate patterns and causation, I also believe that human beings in someway surpass the laws of physics in terms of free will. Thus, while I support the thesis of determinism, like a compatibalist, I also to an extent accept the concept of free will.

Determinism argues that science has no place for the freedom of will. And what appears to be our conscious internal capacity to think and act, is instead a matter of neurons firing at synapses. Yet, according to determinism, all acts of the will, occurrences in nature and psychological phenomena are causally determined by prior events or natural laws. Yet, natural law tells us that cells, moreover atoms do not think. However, our brains which are made up of cells that are made up of atoms have the capacity to indeed think. From how to write a philosophy essay, to evaluating the validity of free will and determinism - the capacity of the mind seemingly surpasses the restriction of physical law. Although it transcends law, I don’t think it necessarily transcends prior events. Biological and social factors surely influence the decision making process for individuals (Bandura 1977). The impact that these prior effects have on the cognition of individuals, thus influences our capacities of free will. Since free will accounts for an introspective conviction that we are in control, and yet environmental, social and biological factors impact our decisions, it is plausible that we are not totally free since experience determines our decisions and mentality.

In response to this issue, as mentioned earlier, is the theory of compatibalism.

Compatibalists aim to resolve the tension between ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’ by creating a neutral thesis by which both views are logically consistent. Modern philosophers such Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Hume, see compatibilism as a way to reconcile free will with modern science. They state that the most moral decisions that humans make, require both external determined factors and internal acts of free will. Hume states that free will and reasonable action must be caused by an individual, immediately bridging a gap between free will and determinism. These philosophers argue that freedom requires causation, and that without it, there would just be randomness. Therefore, in order to sway from randomness, choice must be a causal factor. And if choice is a causal factor, then it must also be a determinant. Thus linking back to how free will cannot be completely understood without determinism. Compatibalism suggests that human choices are a combination of both free will and determinism. Searles depicts this by saying compatibalism‘denies the substance of free will while maintaining its verbal shell.” Compatibalists then in some way rearrange the definition of free will in order to fit determinism, with the focus rather than being solely will, be ‘freedom of action’. Yet the change in translation it is not that large of an issue according to compatibalists, since freedom is

relative.

In conclusion, I agree with the compatibalists in thinking that free will and determinism can logically co-exist. I believe that determinism governs the conditions of living for individuals, however free will determines how an individual will live in these conditions. Determinism provides the setting, yet individuals can manipulate and make a difference to how situations will turn out.