The Concepts of Determinism and Libertarianism - Essay Example

Analyzing the Concepts of Determinism, Libertarianism, and Compatibilism Introduction All individuals embrace an ethical point of view of what is moral and immoral, right and wrong. An ethical point of view on life defines people in most cases as rationally and morally conscientious beings. Yet, this responsibility appears to call for some kind of free will. The presence and nature of freedom of the will is a theme of major significance for how individuals will exercise an ethical point of view in their social and personal interactions with other people. Moreover, it is a difficult theoretical issue with regards to different worldviews that individuals hold. This essay discusses, compares and contrasts, and analyzes the concepts of determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. The last section discusses the best perspective among the three. Comparison and Contrast Philosophers have long debated the nature of free will. Three schools of thought have emerged from this debate: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinism is defined as the belief that for every occurrence there are circumstances which guarantee that nothing else could occur. One variety of determinism describes it as the belief that every occurrence is caused by prior occurrences and the important conditions needed for the creation of that occurrence. Every occurrence is the inevitable consequence of a series of occurrences resulting in that occurrence.1 Hard determinism supports libertarianism in claiming that determinism is irreconcilable with free will. Hard determinists refute the presence of free will and libertarianists believe in the existence of free will and rejects determinism as regards human freedom. Compatibilism, also referred to as soft determinism, states that determinism and freedom are in agreement with each other, and hence the reality of determinism does not eradicate free will.2 Compatibilism has a different view of freedom from that held by hard determinism and libertarianism. The dominant belief of determinists is that science requires general cause and effect. All forms of reality, as well as human action, are tied to a fixed causal network. Hard determinism states that moral responsibility and free will are nonexistent. Because everything is indispensable, predetermined, and imposed, individuals cannot be held responsible for their behaviors. Hard determinism accepts the intuitive character of free will but claims that it is a false impression.3 The pure impossibility of free will can be viewed in how hard determinism characterizes freedom. According to hard determinists, real freedom cannot have a source. Since everything is an outcome of causation, free will is ruled out. Hard determinists view human beings as physical entities and human behavior is determined by natural laws. In contrast, while taking into account the deterministic nature of some forms of reality, libertarianism fully accepts moral responsibility and the intuitive character of free will. This perspective does not disregard the existence of causation and natural laws in the physical realm but argues that it is not applicable to everything, especially to human actions. Libertarianists believe that free individuals act for reasons. Causes explain human actions but do not determine or create them.4 Libertarianism willingly accepts that some occurrences could be necessitated but refutes the idea that every action is the outcome of an antecedent cause. Therefore, libertarianism recognizes the causation model in the physical realm but argues that human actions should be understood in terms reasons, intentions, or internal conditions. Basically speaking, external forces could influence the action, but in the end it is up to the individual to choose between several available alternatives. Compatibilism, on the other hand, is presented as a way of reconciling the opposing views of determinism and libertarianism. This perspective establishes a totally deterministic view of reality but does not argue that free will and moral responsibility are nonexistent. This perspective states that there is no logical discrepancy between determinism and free will, and that it is not impossible for individuals to be morally responsible and free although their actions are subject to the principle of causation.5 On the surface, compatibilism seems weak. The logical clash between libertarianism and determinism is apparent. These are mutually independent assumptions and, as stated in the non-contradiction principle, cannot exist together. The only way to reduce the conflict between these two perspectives is to change some of their premises.6 This is exactly what compatibilism does. Soft determinism reconstructs the idea of free will. Even though the term ‘soft’ may appear confusing, suggesting half-done determinism, soft determinism is similarly dedicated as hard determinism to an absolute concept of determinism.7 The fundamental distinction between these two models is how free will is characterized. The major difference between all three perspectives now becomes clear. Each perspective views free will differently. Hard determinism argues that free will cannot have an origin or a cause, libertarianism argues that free will is one where in an individual has the capacity to choose between several available alternatives, but compatibilism or soft determinism argues that free will is only a matter of acting freely, although the action has been necessitated or caused. Basically, free will exists harmoniously between the individual’s inner state and the individual’s decision. Strengths and Weaknesses The strength of determinism is that it provides the opportunity to accept a deterministic nature of human action without having to disregard the fact that individuals are ultimately accountable for their actions and the reasons underlying them are significant and active, and not merely justifications to explain actions which their inner state has compelled them to take on nonetheless. For it could be that at supposedly ‘instances of choice’ individuals are quite obliged to act the way they do.8 Yet, possibly, individuals are responsible for their actions. People have a choice to gradually change their actions over time, to change their patterns, their wants and goals, and it is in this that free will lives. But determinism is quite one-dimensional, taking for granted the influence of external or environmental forces on human actions. It also disregards the philosophically established notion of moral responsibility and freedom. It views human beings as passive entities, solely necessitated by predetermined forces. On the other hand, one of the strengths of libertarianism is its ‘ability’ premise, which states that in order to have the free will required for responsible action, one should have the capacity to act or decide differently from the manner the individual truly does.9 Libertarianism supports a great extent of individual freedom. Theoretically, the great extent of individual freedom guarantees that every individual is free to choose whatever direction they want. For libertarianism, the actual issue is not whether people are free to choose or act, but whether people are free to choose or act in the first place. Basically, libertarianism puts the individual at the center of his/her every action. It takes into account the ability to choose or act responsibly. Holding individuals responsible for their action makes it easier to justify sanctions against immoral behavior. However, libertarianism fails to account the implication of free will. It does not fully consider the full power of inner states, which are largely influenced by the conditioning of an individual. At times individuals choose a particular action because that is what their training dictates them to do, and not because that is the most rational choice. At times moral responsibility is overwhelmed by these inner states. At times individuals act irresponsibly not because they want to but because they are conditioned or forced to do so. Libertarianism fails to consider all these factors. Lastly, one of the strengths of compatibilism is its effort to reconcile the principles of libertarianism and determinism, or moderate the arguments of each perspective. It tries to harmonize the concepts of free will and causation. However, as mentioned earlier, coexistence between these two concepts is not possible unless one is to modify some of the principles to reduce the conflict. Essentially, compatibilism superficially takes on a neutral stance, when in fact it is more deterministic in nature. It somewhat uses the principle of free will to mask its disproportionate approval of deterministic principles.10 Compatibilism disregards the uniquely subjective ability of individuals to re-evaluate chosen actions in terms of what should occur. Nevertheless, libertarianism is the most realistic and sensible perspective among the three. Why? Unlike determinism which takes on an extremist view of free will, libertarianism does not totally disregard the assumption that there are instances where human action is caused. Unlike compatibilism, libertarianism seriously considers the ability of an individual to choose or act rationally or responsibly. Therefore, an individual carries out a free action on condition that s/he could have acted differently instead. Libertarianism has strongly supported the concept of intuition or introspection. Individuals have the ability to re-assess their choices and actions based on other available alternatives. Libertarianism views individuals as rational beings and not just passive machines. It places constraints on free will and liberty by putting emphasis on the importance of moral responsibility. It does not leave the individual completely on the mercy of predetermined conditions, or natural laws. Conclusions Determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism are three schools of thought that until now guide people’s worldviews. For instance, some believe that if determinism is factual it is difficult to imagine how human action could be present at all because determinism sees human beings as passive entities that are component of a bigger underlying system. Others argue that human actions are not predetermined and individuals have the freedom to choose their actions. These ideas greatly influenced even the core foundations of our social institutions and personal relations. Works Cited Clarke, Randolph. Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Cornman, James, Keith Lehrer, & George Pappas. Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 1992. Cowburn, John. Free will, predestination, and determinism. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 2008. Fischer, John et al. Four Views on Free Will. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Read More