The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy - Essay Example

 Philosophy and Psychiatry Philosophy and Psychiatry Determinism, says Strawson, in his article, “Freedom and Resentment” is a way of looking at things, and not quite what it actually means. It basically depends on the philosopher concerned, and he involves three types of philosophers. The first group of philosopher does not know what the thesis of determinism is. So, the first group is quite clear in its mind on the issue and does not wish to venture any further. The second group of philosophers is divided in its opinion. So, this group is divided into two sub-groups. The first sub-group is the pessimist, and in their opinion the thesis of determinism, if it exists, nullifies the concepts of moral obligation, responsibility, practices of punishment and blame, condemnation and approval. The optimistic sub-group holds the view that the thesis of determinism in no way loses its significance if it exists, and may actually be aiding the concepts of moral obligation and responsibility. Strawson goes on to add another minor group of moral skeptic. According to this minor group, the issues of moral obligation and responsibility are confusing. The moral skeptics are naturally inclined to be closer to the pessimists. Thus, the thesis is embroiled on the way determinism relates to freedom and responsibility, and how people react to them in terms of personal attitude rather than of facts or truth. Elaborating, Strawson goes on to emphasize determinism by using terms such as “personal reactive attitudes”, “objective attitudes” etc. Thus, it becomes necessary to analyse and find out what exactly “personal reactive attitude” is and how it could be compared and contrasted to “objective attitude”? The author tries to simplify the comparison by attempting to coalesce the different points of views by highlighting the fact that the thesis of determinism is exclusive as well as inclusive, in the sense that it could be argued both ways, with strong viewpoints expressed by both sides, ultimately ending up in something of a no man’s land. For every argument that “personal reactive attitude” puts forward, there is a counter-argument used by “objective attitude.” The whole idea seems to be rotating in circles and ending up in a blind alley. Strawson is, however, diplomatic in his stand. While he is willing to side one, he is not prepared to sidestep or antagonize the other. He voices his opinion in favour of the first group, the group which simply dismisses the thesis of determinism as something it does not know anything about. However, he sympathizes with the other group or sub-groups. Could it be hypocrisy on his part? No, says Strawson. He favours reconciliation because he believes that there is some light in what the group of pessimists, optimists and sceptics say. The Arguments Now, coming to the main issue, the optimists feel that the thesis of determinism cannot be ruled out as false for the simple reason that the “facts as we know them do not show determinism to be false.” That is to say, the optimists feel, there are enough facts to corroborate the existence and relevance of determinism. However, they submit that the facts are not strong enough to convince the pessimists. Or else, they are not in a position to present the facts in a convincing manner. Therefore, the optimists are willing to concede a “vital part” of their facts which they find difficult to produce, in exchange for the pessimists’ willingness to “go beyond the facts” and thus allow some kind of a status quo, so that whatever is “beyond the facts” may still hold out some ray of hope for the pessimists. The status quo is necessary because the pessimists cannot prove that the optimists are totally wrong for being unable to adequately represent the facts. (page 2) Going a step further, Strawson elaborates, “Some optimists about determinism point to the efficacy of the practices of punishment, and of moral condemnation and approval, in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. The fact of their efficacy, they suggest, is an adequate basis for these practices; and this fact certainly does not show determinism to be false.” To this the pessimists counter that, “just punishment and moral condemnation imply moral guilt and guilt implies moral responsibility and moral responsibility implies freedom and freedom implies the falsity of determinism.” The optimists persist, “it is true that these practices require freedom in a sense, and the existence of freedom in this sense is one of the facts as we know them. But what ‘freedom’ means here is nothing but the absence of certain conditions the presence of which would make moral condemnation or punishment inappropriate.” How one wishes the buck stopped here! But it does not! The pessimists too persist, “You turn towards me first the negative, and then the positive, faces of a freedom which nobody challenges. But the only reason you have given for the practices of moral condemnation and punishment in cases where this freedom is present is the efficacy of these practices in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. But this is not a sufficient basis, it is not even the right sort of basis, for these practices as we understand them.” In order to hammer out a compromise between the pessimists and optimists, the issue goes deeper down to determinists and libertarians. Here there are the “non-detached attitudes and reactions of people directly involved in transactions with each other, of the attitudes and reactions of offended parties and beneficiaries; of such things as gratitude, resentment, forgiveness, love, and hurt feelings.” Personal reactive attitudes and Objective attitudes Suppose A has stepped on the toes of B. B is bound to react. But the degree of reaction, whether it is a reaction of anger, of pain, discomfort, or whatever, will vary according to the relationship A has with B. It also depends on his state of mind which will ultimately reveal the full state of B’s reaction. Take another instance. B has given full vent to his anger and exploded. This incidence generally produces reactions of two kinds. One group’s comments include: “He didn’t mean to’, ‘He hadn’t realized’, ‘He didn’t know’, ‘He couldn’t help it’, ‘He was pushed’, ‘He had to do it’, ‘It was the only way’, ‘They left him no alternative’, etc.” The second group comments: “‘He wasn’t himself’, ‘He has been under very great strain recently’, ‘He was acting under post-hypnotic suggestion’, ‘He’s only a child’, ‘He’s a hopeless schizophrenic’, ‘His mind has been systematically perverted’, ‘That’s purely compulsive behaviour on his part.’” Both groups are supportive of B. The second group, however, indirectly concedes that B was not his normal self. In other words, B’s reaction was abnormal. They may very well say, “B was warped or deranged, neurotic or just a child.” Thus the observations of the two different groups about B’s action are not “altogether exclusive”. But they are “profoundly opposed” to each other. Conclusively, however, seeing B “warped or deranged or compulsive in behaviour or peculiarly unfortunate in his formative circumstances” the two groups of onlookers are content to excuse him from normal onlookers’ “reactive attitudes” to the more benevolent and civilized “objective attitudes”. Nonetheless, on the basis of a thorough evaluation, this “objective attitude” along with the moral “reactive attitudes” also excludes the important concepts of moral condemnation and moral responsibility. Both, the pessimists and the optimists, while absolving B in their own ways, are guilty of over-simplifying and “over-intellectualizing” the facts. This prevarication is responsible for the formation of the skeptics who hold no brief for either the pessimist or the optimist. There is no clear-cut delineation between pessimists and optimists with regards to determinism. Often truths and falsehoods, rights and wrongs, black and white, facts and fiction, moral and immoral, blind beliefs and rationality seem to take turns and twists according to circumstances and expedience. “Reactive attitudes” and “objective attitudes” depend on where or how far one stands from the dividing line. One’s perception that has more to do with how the mind is conditioned, or indoctrinated, whether one has a personal axe to grind or old scores to settle, and plainly put, where one’s interests lies! The problem, or maybe advantage, with reactive and objective thinking is that you can proffer a rationale behind every conflicting theory.  In other words the believers and the rationality crusaders marshal facts and rationalize their respective beliefs. No doubt, one has to go along with the rationalists because a belief has to stand the rigors of scientific tests and trials. On my part, I have my own reservations on the issue of determinism. However, I have to go along with Strawson, because if we were to go strictly by the thesis of determinism, it will be difficult to live in a world where everybody is a slave to the dictates and decrees of eon number of rules. We live not by the prevalence of determinism, but by the “reign of benevolence and goodwill”. Source: P. F. Strawson: Freedom and Resentment, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwstrawson1.htm Read More