The Problem of Free Will: Compatibilism - Essay Example

The Problem of Free Will: Compatibilism By The Problem of Free Will: Compatibilism Compatibilism is the philosophical view that the concept of free will is compatible with the concept of determinism (Rauhut, 2010). Compatibilism is the middle position between hard determinism and Libertarianism (Compatibilism, n.d.). Among the three possible solutions to the problem of free will, i.e. hard determinism, Libertarianism, and Compatibilism, I find the Compatibilism position most plausible. This paper gives a critical discussion of why Compatibilism position is the most plausible solution to the problem of evil as compared to the other two positions. There are three main reasons why I endorse Compatibilism position as the most plausible position among the three possible solutions to the problem of evil. The first reason why I find Compatibilism to be the most plausible position is that libertarianism position is inconsistent with our daily experiences in life. This is because in our experiences in life, we find that there are many factors and circumstances that determine us in our behaviour. The factors that determine human beings in their behaviour include cultural, environmental, genetic, and even social factors (Grant, 2007). For clarity on this issue, it is important to briefly discuss each of the four factors that determine human beings in their behaviour. On cultural determinism, you find that the culture in which one grows in influences his/her behaviour in a fundamental way; the culture in which one grows in shapes our worldview in a significant way. For instance, from experience our experiences in life, we learn that a person who is brought up in a community where polygamy is culturally accepted tend to see nothing wrong with polygamy, unless the person studies and out of critical reasoning realizes that polygamy may be a form of discrimination to women. On the other hand, a person who grows up in a culture where polygamy is not allowed tends to have a negative attitude towards polygamy. For this reason, therefore, the culture in which one is brought up determines our behaviour in a significant way. The environment in which one grows also influences our world view and our behaviour in a significant way. For instance, the hunters and gatherers, who have grown up and lived in the forest throughout their lives have a different worldview from the people who have grown up and lives in cities; the hunters and gathers understand the world in terms of their experiences in the forests, while the people who have grown up in the cities conceive the world in terms of their experiences of living in cities. This fact again shows that the libertarianism solution to the problem of free will is false; the environment in which grows up indeed determines one’s behaviour and world view in a significant way. Genetics also influences one’s behaviour in a substantial way. This is because human beings pass on their genes to their children and the inherited genes determines one’s behaviour in a big way. For instance, some psychological disorders like psychopathy are inherited. This fact, therefore, shows that human behaviour is shaped in a big way by biological inheritance. This fact, therefore, shows that human beings are determined in a big way by genetics. Lastly, human beings are also determined in their behaviour by social factors. For instance, a person who has grown up in a poor society has a different worldview from the person who has grown up in a rich society; for instance, the person who has grown up in a poor society is more likely to be stingy in spending money than a person who has grown up in riches. This fact, therefore, shows that social factors determine us in a big way. For those four reasons, therefore, libertarianism is not a tenable solution to the problem of evil. The second main reason why I hold the view that Compatibilism is the most plausible solution to the problem of evil among the three possible solutions is that hard determinism position reduces human beings into automatons and denies them the capability of making any free, rational decisions. The hard determinism position assumes that all human being’s actions are wholly determined by cultural, environmental, genetic, and social factors, and that human beings have absolutely no control on their behaviour and their actions. Our experiences in life, however, have shown us that, although, we are determined to some extent by the cultural, environmental, genetic, and social factors, human beings have control of their actions. A good example of this fact is the behaviour of people who have grown up in the same family, i.e. the people who have grown up in the culture, environment, have the same parents, and have grown up in the same society, and yet they have different behaviours in life. If all what determine the behaviour of human beings is the cultural, the environmental, the genetic, and the social factors, then the people who have grown up under the same conditions should have the same behaviour. Experiences, however, have shown us that even identical twins who have grown together under the same conditions and, who have received the same education, may have completely different behaviour in life. This fact, therefore, shows that human behaviour is not wholly determined by the environmental, cultural, genetic, and cultural factors. This point brings me to the third reason why I hold the view that Compatibilism is the best solution to the problem of free will. My third reason why I hold this view is that the concept of free will is not necessarily opposed to the concept of determinism. This is because the concept of free will does not imply that human beings are absolutely free to choose their actions; it is possible for something to be free to some extent, but not absolutely free. Also, the concept of determinism doesn’t necessarily mean that human beings are absolutely determined in their actions; it is possible for something to be determined to some extent, but not absolutely determined. For this reason, therefore, it is not contradictory to say that human beings are both free and determined- this means that human beings are free to some extent and they are determined to some extent. For this reason, therefore, Compatibility concept is not a self-contradictory concept. For this reason, therefore, I hold the view that Compatibilty is the most plausible solution to the problem of free will. One major objection that can be raised to my argument on Compatibility is the argument that the concept of free will and the concept of determinism are mutually exclusive concept, and for that reason the Compatibilty concept is untenable and self-contradictory concept. In response to this claim, I would contend that although the two concepts, indeed, seem to be contradictory, the concept of Compatibility is not self-contradictory. In supporting my view, I would contend that the concepts of free will and determinism are contradictory only in their absolute terms, but not in their relative terms; indeed it is impossible for something to be absolutely free and yet be absolutely determined. In their relative terms, however, it is possible for something to be half-free and half-determined. Consequently, I would argue that the objection that the concept of Compatibillism is self-contradictory is a false objection that is not based on facts. I would, therefore, conclude that Compatibilism is the most plausible solution to the problem of free will. Compatibilism. Web Grant, E. (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. USA, New York: Cambridge University Press. Rauhut, N. ( 2010). Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy (3rd Edition). USA: Pearson Read More