Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism - Essay Example

Concepts of Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism Ancient philosophical ethics has been based on religion,none the less, codes of conduct differ among individual persons in various parts. This is because diverse cultures have different religions. Discussion whether human action is pre-determined or is as a result of free will started ancient time and until today no concrete solution has been obtained. Free will, choice, liberty, and determination are terms that seem similar yet different in philosophical meaning. Steinberg reports that free will bank on twofold components: ability to choose and the moral to act upon the chosen autonomous will (Steinberg 88). Free will can be termed as spiritual canon. In that some of our decisions are uncaused and effective at the same time. Absence of causes, conditions is what causes free will. Majority philosophers believe moral responsibility does not seen to require some sort of practical freedom of the will. Time and again free will is interpreted to mean could have done otherwise. There is a primary ethical dilemma that dates back to ancient time, in the sense that controversy arises if it is scientific substance. Total determinism views all events and even individuals actions are as a result of prior conditions, which makes those actions unavoidable. The pre-determined stimuli can either be biological, psychological, scientific environment, or divine forces. However, complete freedom of the mind provides that man is able to come into an agreement independent of natural or metaphysical influencing forces (Steinberg 89). Sadduceans believed in absolute free will with no godly providence, thus putting every action to mere chance. Ancient Pharisees accepted a notion that brings together free choice with godlike providences, terming it as a form of determinism. According to them God regulates the rules and deeds occurring in the universe and also controls human actions. Sages have summarized the extensive range of human freedom of mind into a simplified eight letter statement (All that happens is foreknown, but the choice is given). This knowledge was further explained by ancient Jews Sages in the Talmud, Jewish philosopher’s and legal ideologist and majority of them expressed their thoughtful belief in free will of individuals, bearing in mind the vital requirement of moral conduct. They reported that every individual can opt to be good or evil with no heavenly prearrangement. If this was not the case the entire Torah would be unreasonable with no ground to reprimand, penalize the wrong doers or appreciate the righteous. However, contrary to their earlier remarks they realized the natural conflict between human freedom and Gods knowledge and foresight. In order to bring together common understanding, several ideas were proposed. The ideas were to ascertain a measureable input of each action or behavior. However, these arguments are beyond the range of this article. Jewish point of view summarized free will need not be interpreted as complete libertarianism, whereas determinism need not be comprehended as absolute fashion. With this it would see individual deeds; codes of conduct are not either free or determined. This means they are both free and determined in a relative admixture. Judaism believes in the capacity of freedom of the mind. The acceptance of medicine in Jewish law is based on the refusal of absolute determinism. According to Talmud practicing medicine is allowed disapproving the idea that by doing one is doing away with Gods deeds. Engelhardt argues that full freedom and autonomy must be guaranteed, even if these appear wrongheaded or downright offensive and evil to others, in order to maintain a peaceable society. The right of autonomy in this libertarian view takes precedence over the good. This retreat to private principles eventually leads to a moral atomism in which each individual’s moral beliefs and actions unless they annoy the easygoing community are unquestionable. Moral debate thus becomes futile, since each person is his/her own arbiter of right and good. The traditional notion of ethics as reasoned public discourse in search of the common good is discarded (Engelhardt 12). Individual freedom should not be allowed to the point it overrides of moral values. In that their needs to be set a limit of one’s independence. Thus when it is in conflict with other certain values it is waved. Freedom in medicine poses a major dilemma to both patient and physician. Their lies a moral conflict between principle of independence and the value of life in the case of suicide. According to some philosophers freedom should supersede even the value of life. Contrary to that Judaism reports that human life is supreme and surpasses even considerations like determination. Therefore man’s life should be treasured and not disposed of at will. View that all events including those mental have a cause is determination (free will and determination, 2). Affairs of all kind either physical or mental are conditioned by conditioned by causes and are describable by scientific law (free will and determination 2). Determinist life there are no such things as free will, chance, or miracles and goes to the extent of pointing out that choices are considered epiphenomena. Laplace having acquired essential knowledge on every element in the universe, believed that, any future or past event could be perfectly calculated (free will and determination 3). The opposite of determinism is indeterminism and these statements opposes that the former word is true. Specifically it reports that not all events are as a result of past event. Chance that how events occurs because there is a degree of free play between events. Those opposing determinism have it that some events are caused will others are not, but in indeterminism only the latter counts. This implies that indeterminism allows for such events as Miracles, free will and chance. Chance is the probability of a future occurrence and can be foreseen from past occurrence of previous similar occurrence. This knowledge implies chance is not compatible with determinism. Lack of knowledge of the exact initial condition results in an inexact and predictable consequence. Citing an example of a coin toss, individuals would base the outcome of the toss basing on data from past coin toss of the same coin and similar tossing mechanism. However if one did not know shape, mass or center of gravity of the coin, according to indeterminist an axact prediction of heads and tails would be made ( Free will and determinism 5). Compatibilist has it that all physical events are caused. Compatibilist accounts of free will have even been growing more sophisticated with current time. According to compatibilist, Viz, the compatibility thesis: Free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determination. This means if determinism is true it doesn’t threaten free will and moral responsibility. The accomplishment of compatibilist is something of an embarrassment to those who think it’s the natural commonsense position (Nichols 2). According to Stanley compatibilist is a product of determination. It reports that choice is the unavoidable product of causes, which do not originate from within the individual. It holds that individuals acts out of sheer will when the immediate cause of choices lies within. Looking at Pharaoh were God to make his heart an irresistible desire to enslave the Hebrews, Pharaoh would still opt to enslave them. Contrary to that , his choice is still free for it lies from within his heart’s desire ( Stanley 73). Opposite to compatibilist is libertarianism. Libertinism holds that free, acceptable codes of conduct must originate purely on the conscious agent. Individuals must note that a choice is free if and only if the agent could have chosen otherwise. Rogers reports that if doing wrong is really blameworthy and God is just compatibilism is untruthful. On the other hand, if human choices are not determined by anything at all, are they not eerily arbitrary? As Rogers puts it, “If it is true that at some key choices in your moral career you faced literally open options, then there is no answer to the question, But why did you opt for this over that. Metaphysically speaking, are not acts of libertarian choice exceedingly odd exceptions to the theist’s claim that all non-divine beings are caused to exist by God? If the agent is the sole cause of his choices, has not God’s causality been excluded ( Rogers 415-435). All human acts are novel and non-eternal; however non eternal actions require an external impact. Thus since every human act is outside of it, it implies no human action is voluntary. Similarly, God does not force the desire for goodness upon an already existing will. Rather God operates through a secondary cause, the human intellect. Thus, the will for Aquinas is not an unmoved mover and just like the sensible appetite its moved to apprehend good. Just as the eye is limited to the Perception of color, the will is limited to inclining towards things inasmuch as they are good ( Pegis 81). Libertarianism is taken as an economic doctrine dealing mainly with conserving economic liberty against the encroachment of government. Politically it has been used to defend human right and bring in an open democratic society. The individual freedom of choice is the fundamental ground upon which libertarian philosophy is born but it is also supported by economic and political liberty (Kurtz 153). State power poses a threat to human freedom and liberals like Max are now turning their attention to social welfare as compared to individual freedom. Liberals believe that its paramount to redistribute wealth to all people in the name of equity and justice. They argue that social policies must equalize the conditions of opportunity in that they would force people to be equal. However their weakness is that they focus mainly on evil deeds of the government, whereas it is not the only institution that can limit freedom. Individual freedom can be barred by powerful economic co-operate houses that define employment and fix prices. Libertarians deny the state, media control of communication and seek a free market of ideas. The flood of freedom can be seen also in large scale labor unions for they increase clients bargaining power. When unions with aid of government deny the right to work to non- members this is unfair. Religious institutions also suppress believers dictating their morality and sexuality. In this regard libertarian should not defend economic liberty yet suppress religious dissent. Conclusion Libertarianism indeed is inadequate as a moral philosophy and remains extremely in need of restoration unless it is willing to adjust its ethical system so that it can introduce considerations. Personally freedom is an art that should be cultivated. Liberty and moral development are intertwined and both go hand in hand. Works Cited Kurtz, Paul: Libertarianism as the philosophy of moral freedom. Spring 1982 153-157Free will and determinism Nichols, shaun. The rise of compatibilism. A case study in the quantitative history of philosophy. University Arizona 1-15 Rogers, Katherine. Augustine’s compatibilism: Religious Studies 40:4 (December, 2004), 415-435. Laplace, Pierre-Simon. Philosophical Essays on Probability. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1995. Pegis, Anton: Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas .Random House: New York, 1945.81 Stanley, kevin. Aguinas: Compatibilist or Libertarian. The saint Anselm journal 2.2(2005) spring print 73-79 Steinberg, Avraham. Free will versus determination in bioethics: comparative philosophical and jewish perspective 1991.17-20 Read More