Determinism,compatibilism, and libertarianism - Essay Example

? Philosophical Discussion: Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism Due Since the beginnings of human civilization people have been seeking the ideal path to achieving a productive, successful, healthy, and happy society. There are several different theories conceived and developed aimed at achieving it. Unfortunately, many of these ideas are not remotely in agreement and some downright contradict one another. Each one claiming to have the answer as to the nature of mankind, why human beings behave as they do, and how best for them to live within and perceive society. Determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism are three prime examples of philosophical concepts, each having strong historical support and criticisms. While each ideology has logical arguments supporting its validity they, also, have internal flaws that may lead to negative outcomes; therefore determining which, if any, is the most likely to be the best, or correct, answer to ideal human society and perspective on human reality if no easy feat. What is free will? If so, does it exist? The answer is not as simple as you think. If you define free will as being the idea that reality plays out according to the millions of individual choices and decisions we make based on wants and desires, both, great and small, then the ideology behind Determinism may not be for you. However, if you believe that scientific principles, psychological motivators, and persistent causative events outside ones’ control and force every choice that you make; even the sense of choice is, essentially, a false perception, then you would be a poor libertarian. If you believe that, although many causative events play a part in influencing our decisions and behaviors, but, on occasion those causative elements are absent, allowing for certain choices to be made solely by want and desire beyond needs and if you believe that perhaps both could coexist, then you might fit in nicely in the company of compatibilists. However, do not look for support from the determinists and libertarians, both consider the idea of coexistence as illogical, not plausible, and impossible. (Pecorino, 2000) In order to understand, determinism, capatibilism, and libertarianism better, as well as, assess the differing strengths and weaknesses, it is necessary to discuss and review each theory individually. Determinism in its, most basic form, can be defined as a belief system that adheres to the ideology that all things in nature are subject to the cause and effect principal, human behavior included. For this reason human beings are not responsible for their behavior because the actions and behaviors exhibited by people are directly a response to causal or set of causal events, entirely outside their control. More so, determinists believe that all things follow the natural law and that behaviors can, in fact, be predicted, if enough causal variables are known.(Pecorino, 2000) Simply put, determinists look at the world at given period in time and apply the “natural laws,” or clearly defined understanding of what is true, and then relating that to what will inevitably be in the future.(Newall, 2005)There are 4 specific factors that are believed to play a huge role as causative factors in the actions and behaviors of human beings; 1. Human Nature: determinists claim that human beings are subject to the instincts and biological imperatives outside of their conscious control. 2. Environment: human behavior can be attributed to their response to environmental factors that, essentially, forcing their hand. 3. Psychological Forces: Not unlike human nature, psychological drives influence behavior, again, outside one’s control. 4. Social Dynamic: human beings are directly subject to the rules, laws, and societal constructs of their communities, which, also, influences human behavior. Ultimately, the overall reigning element of determinism that characterizes and creates criticism of it is that it holds firmly that human free will is an illusion that we are, in fact, not at all in control or in charge of our choices and desires. Much of what separates these ideologies is the concept of free will, and whether it is an actual part of human experience. Compatibilism or “soft determinism” is an ideology that offers the theory that the concepts of determinism and the existence of free will can coexist. (Ogletree & Oberle, 2008)They claim that there are indeed elements and factors to human existence that can be causal events that lead to certain outcomes and influence behavior, but others aspects of human life must be influenced by choice, when external influences are not present. In some ways the theory is not unlike the philosophy behind the concept that there can be no basis of good without the certainty of evil. In other words, it is the absence of options in some areas that makes the presence of free will possible; one cannot exist without the other.( Ostrowick, 2006) Compatibilists do not see themselves as a combining or compromising medium between libertarianism and determinism. They do not disregard but embrace that determinism is true. That human behavior is controlled by causal events, but on occasion that event is their own desires. Many believe that compatibilism was conceived as“determinism with slight modification,” primarily, to maintain some sense of needed accountability and responsibility for individual human behavior.(Pecorino, 2000) Libertarianism is the antithesis of determinism. Essentially it claims that humanity as a thinking species, capable of decision-making is completely and totally free and exists as the ultimate form of incapatibilism. In other words, libertarians completely denounce the ideology of the entirely choice free world of the determinists and argues against the compatibilist ideology as being an, overall, impossible one; the ideas of free will and determinism can never, both, be true.( Ostrowick, 2006) In fact, the only causal influences that libertarians will, generally, concede to is the oppressive and invasive presence of an overpowering government. They feel much of the strife, discord, social unrest and crime can be attributed the involvement of too much government stagnating the individual freedoms and liberties of others. Libertarians believe in individualism and individual rights. Simply meaning, every single person is a moral entity innately by birth and have the right to make choices for themselves about all aspects of their life. The idea of spontaneous liberty holds that any form of social order cannot be a governmental agency, but by groups of human beings choosing to subscribe to rules and order spontaneously as they see fit. They have a firm belief in limited government influence on the freedoms and rights of the individual. They do not propose a lawless existence where people can just do as they please without regard. In fact, individuals are free to do as they please to achieve their own liberties and lives as they see fit, they may not infringe on the same rights of others.(Boaz, 1999) They do not believe that humanity as whole is bound by the cause and effect principle. Essentially, where determinists would offer that the same set of variables will breed the same responses, and in the case of human decision human beings would make the same predictable choice time and again, libertarians believe that given the same variables leading to the same options one may chose differently.(Stewerd, 2009) Libertarians focus on the deliberation of one’s own behavior, their own future. If free will did not exist then there would be no logical need to ever deliberate in one’s own mind if the outcomes are already determined. Ultimately, these three concepts appear to be anything but compatible. Although each attempt to explain the human condition and address the amount of control we individually, if any, have over it, choosing one as the most beneficial, practical and likely to be successful is hardly easy. Free will implies that we have control over the outcomes of events in our life. It, also, means that we are responsible for our decisions and are accountable for our actions. (Newall, 2005) It is here that the greatest weaknesses of these ideologies become much clearer. Many philosophers explain that the human perception of free will is directly linked to how people perceive and attribute blame, punishment, moral responsibility. In determinism, lacking free will, there is no accountability for people’s actions. People could do as they please, for better or worse, and they could never really be held responsible for what they have done.(Ogletree & Oberle, 2008) They are victims of circumstance and could not have behaved any differently, basically, because they didn’t. A fine example of this would be in the case of an armed burglar robbing a house; in the process, he shoots the homeowner and kills him. Under the theory of determinism this man would not be held for his decision to rob, the decision to take a gun, and the choice of firing it; more so he could not be held accountable for taking a life. In the case of libertarianism, it allows for total and complete choice with limited intervention of the overall society. However, it, also, works under the idea that human beings are by nature innately moral and when given the opportunity they will choose what is best for them, while naturally choosing never to impede on the rights and freedoms of others. The assumption that humanity is innately moral is a dangerous gamble that no one can guarantee. In fact, in a libertarian society it might be just as difficult to assess accountability and responsibility of individual actions. How do you determine the consequences for someone else’s actions when there are no parameters beyond individual choices and desires and how do you determine the degree that another trespasses on another’s when liberty is relative. Compatibilism, again, is not the “happy medium” that some might hope. In fact, with the philosophical balancing act that the theory attempts it may only make it more difficult to ascribe blame, punish, and determine ethical and moral responsibility. When, for a rather unpleasant, but applicable, example, a rape occurs. In this instance is the perpetrator a victim of causal events and biological imperatives outside their control and therefore not responsible for the action or is this an instance of free will, and he choice to commit this crime? It is this unrealistic attempt at balance between the existence of libertarian free will and determinist causality makes this, particular, perspective difficult to support.(Pecorino, 2000) In the end, it is feasible to determine that none of these concepts are the ideal solution for the future of modern life. However, if forced to choose between the three, without any other options, the most probable choice would be libertarian for one very specific reason. Free will does exist. True, man is influenced by biological imperatives, outside events, but is adaptable to their environments. Human beings cannot stand at the edge of mountain, spread his arms, and wish himself to fly. He may will it, but his physically body will never do it. So what did man do? Man found another way to fly. He built aircraft to do what he willed, not because he had to, not because nature forced him to, but because he wanted to. Given this example it would not be possible to ever embrace determinism. Determinism would lead to a lazy society. People who have no hope of control, abandon hope, and stop trying. For the all of the flaws of libertarianism, it does offer a foundation of freedom, but allows room for individuals to form like-minded groups that can then live within some sorts of appropriate laws and parameters agreeable and fair to all. Ultimately, human beings are communal animals, who need to be able to function socially and productively with others. However, there may be no perfect solution, but the fact that humanity keeps trying is another astounding testament of free will. References Boaz, D. (1999, January 1). Key concepts of libertarianism. Cato Institute, 1. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism Newall, P. (2005, July 13). Free will and determinism. The Galilean, 1. Retrieved from http://www.galileanlibrary.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/introducingphilosophy/13-free-will-and-determinism-r29 Ogletree, S. M., & Oberle, C. D. (2008). The nature, common usage, and implications of free will and determinism. Behavior and Philosophy, 36, 97-111. Ostrowick, J. M. (2006). whether we have free-will,and whether it matters. (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand)Retrieved from http://academia.edu/683675/Whether_We_Have_Free-Will_and_Whether_It_Matters Pecorino, P. (2000). Introduction to philosophy. Creative Commons Attribution. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/CONTENTS.htm Stewerd, H. (2009). The truth in compatibilism and the truth of libertarianism. Philosophical Explorations, 12(2), 176-179. Read More