Akash Shankar
Richard Pulling
7-23-2015
Philosophy
Are You Free The concept of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism is truly trying to explain if we are free and if so how much. Some of us believe that we are the masters of our fate, our soul while others believe our destiny is predetermined and that we are bound to a certain set goal in life. The concepts of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism try to help aid in that discussion and help enlighten us on what we believe is the correct ideology. It is therefore extremely important to define what each of these three concepts mean before comparing and contrasting the various arguments that each present.
First off is determinism, this is a view that every event, including human
…show more content…
Libertarianism is the view that humans are able to make authentically free choices that are not determined by previous events in accordance with universal casual laws, that there is a meaningful sense that though we made one choice we could have made a different one (Chaffee 174). Not only this, but it also allows humans to have genuine freedom, because they are exercising their free will. Steward gives a more mathematical approach to the explanation of what libertarianism is. The typical libertarian believes that a free decision to A, made by a given agent, at a particular time t, could, at that very moment, have gone the other way. In the actual world, this agent, I shall call him Joe – decides at t to A. But in another world with the very same laws of nature and the very same past, the libertarian believes, Joe decides at t not to A. The world, as it were, must afford both possibilities, according to this libertarian; it must be genuinely open, at the moment immediately preceding t that either eventuality should happen (Steward). This definition although more complicated in writing I believe gives a better picture on what libertarianism truly …show more content…
For example the deterministic view has one major weak side that is clearly seen in the Loeb and Leopold case. Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold were two young men who had privileged families and attended the best schools. However they murdered a fourteen year old boy to experience the thrill of killing someone. The public wanted the death penalty to be handed down but attorney Clarence Darrow fought and won a life imprisonment verdict (Chaffee 177).The attorney employed a hard determinist argument to show the judge that his clients were victims of circumstance and they were beyond their own control. He even says in the trial that nature is strong and she is pitiless. She works in her own mysterious way, and we are her victims (Chaffee 177). His argument obviously worked as the two young men were not sentenced to death. This one case in my opinion shows how determinism does not make sense to me. I absolutely believe that the environment and the way were brought up has an effect on how we act on the decisions we make. But at the end of the day I also believe that we should be fully help responsible for the actions that we make. These two young men in my opinion should have been punished to the full degree. The deterministic argument puts too much emphasis on the environment and other factors instead of one’s self in my opinion. I could be taught and raised to steal my entire life, yes I may have been
There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.
Diametrically opposed to hard determinism is a philosophical viewpoint with which free will is closely compatible: libertarianism. Proponents of this position, such as philosopher William James, maintain that humans are all free and therefore, liable for their actions. When making a decision, people “choose which path to take, and (…) are as a result responsible for that choice”. With this in mind, “the testimony of our direct, lived experience” is what offers “the most compelling grounds” for this argument; according to James, evidence of free will cannot be found through scientific study. Rather, the existence of free will should be determined by the average person’s “assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts”. In short, the argument that libertarians assert is that free will should be believed in simply because the majority of the population believes in it. The existence of freedom will most likely never be definitively proven or
Hard determinism and libertarianism are both extreme philosophies with soft determinism (compatibilism) somewhat of a middle ground. Hard determinism sees very little or no free will for actions, that everything is inevitable. Libertarianism views that every person has free will in their decisions. Soft determinism states that there is a determined plan of action, but that there is a freedom dependent upon whether that determined action comes from an internal decision. Decisions are therefore resulting actions come from either external or internal motivations. Based upon the readings and personal experiences, I would have to say I am a soft-determinist.
Libertarians support the view that people have free will and so we are free to make moral decisions. For a Libertarian, the key evidence for this is the act of decision making in our daily lives. Hume states that “experience is what we see to be true”, each human being experiences the feeling of being free to make a decision. If experiencing any other action constitutes it to be true, then why not the same for free will? Libertarians argue that we have awareness of the choices we make; we can choose to do anything that we are capable of. Though we are influenced by our environment and experiences, ultimately we can make our own decisions, nothing is
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a
Hard determinists believe that genetics determine personalities and actions only through the Newtonian laws of cause and effect. They affirm that freedom and free will are fiction and because of this humans have no moral responsibility for their actions. They insist that the sources of motivation behind their thoughts and actions are causualistic and predictable and that free will is an illusion triggered by convenience and ego. The past determines the future.
At the same time, the Libertarians believe that people have “free will”, and there are no such inevitable results of those behaviors that are controlled by “free will”. Libertarianism has different meanings in different academic fields. From the general level, the libertarianism refers to people’s ability to decide whether or not to do something according to their
When I wake up in the morning, I have a set list of obligations for that day. Reasoning and habit dictate that I will follow through that set list, yet I am my own being and have control over my actions. I have free will and can choose to sleep in bed all day or get up and do my chores. While there are some situations where the consequences are out of our control, we still have the ability to decide when opportunities arise. Either extreme of this argument has its fatal flaws, as the determinist see everything as the product of a choice made long ago, and the libertarianist claims we have free will no matter how dire the situation is. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me, it is the difference between the two in an argument without a solution.
Libertarianism rejects soft determinism and hard determinism because libertarians believe that freedom does exist. However, libertarians believe in indeterminism because it does not believe in any predetermined causality. Also, “libertarians say that you also have to be free to want differently than you do.” (pp. 227-233, Palmer)
Libertarian view on freedom is that choices are free from any persistence or pressure from human nature and free from any intentions by God. Libertarian is important to any moral responsibility. If choices were determined or created by anything, like for example someone’s desires, then it can’t be called a free choice. Libertarian is the freedom that acts on one’s nature, susceptibility, and considerable desires. The Libertarian viewer have an idea, that God make men act in a certain way, and the man has free will in acting in that way. God does put a limit on the actions that they can do, but not on their mind or their will. Some objections that come up is causality, responsibility, and God’s freedom.
Determinism: According to Sappington (1990) there are two types of determinism, hard and soft. He states that those who hold hard determinism say that human behavior is completely determined by outside factors and that ideas such a free will or moral responsibility are meaningless. Many famous psychologists take this approach such as Freud who believed that people’s behavior is controlled by unconscious factors and any conscious reasons given are simply the brain rationalizing actions to the superego. Skinner argued against Freud and said that behavior is determined by their reinforcement histories. Although they argue on the finer points they both believe that conscious choice is irrelevant.
The way according to Hume the he proposes we understand liberty is that we as humans can take one certain action or we can veer from that from that action and take a different course of action. An example of this might be that someone says they wants to ride a bicycle and because they choose this the person can enjoy in this liberty all they want, unless for some reason this person isn’t able to perform this action due to the fact that they are unable to because
The idea of free will is something that has been debated for a very long time. Some believe that we have it, while some believe we don’t. Some believe that free will is an illusion and others believe that humans are responsible for what they do and as a result they have free will. In the scenario of choosing pizza over yogurt and then feeling guilty because I could’ve had yogurt instead I believe, that it would be reasonable for me to blame myself because I could have indeed chosen the yogurt over the pizza. In arguing this, I am taking the side of the libertarian who believes that we have free will.
Ever since the beginning of time one of the biggest debates of time was Free Will or Determinism. With Determinism people are looking from the outside in, and with Free Will people are looking inside out. Is the world based on everyone and everything having Free Will, or is everything that happen determined to happen? I am a determinist, I believe that everything that happens, happens for a reason, caused by events that have happen in the past. I am going to give you three examples of historical events that show Determinism is present in society, and always has been present. Major court cases in the U.S. like Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and Brown v. Board of Education 2 caused the Civil Rights Movement. WW2 Caused The Cold War. The great depression caused The New Deal, and FDR.
The determinists believe that people are molded by outside forces such as human nature, their environment, psychological forces, and social dynamics (Chaffee, 2013, p. 173). Human nature refers to the inborn nature that every person is genetically hardwired with. In other words we can’t have free choice because we cannot alter our fundamental character (Chaffee, 2013, p.173)