A major philosophical debate of Free Will Vs. Determinism is one that fascinates me. The part I like most is hearing other peoples take on the topic. I'll introduce the two before stating what I think.
The theory asserting universal causation and total predictibility traditionally has been called determinism. This means all actions, by living creatures or otherwise, are predetermined. This is where the notion of cause and effect comes from. One can see that cause and effect happens every day. There are many varieties of determinism though they all revolve around this standard.
A more extreme variation of determinism is called fatalism. This is more commonly known as fate. That everything is already determined and that people have no control over their actions. If something is to happen it is unavoidable and no alternative exists.
For the determinist, human actions are events as predictable as any other type of event. Just as the behavior of water heated to 212 degrees Fahrenheit can be predicted, so, in principle, can the behavior of a person given a million dollars. The determinist would admit that, at the moment the latter sort of prediction cannot be made reliably because we lack the necessary exact laws of human behavior. Someday, however, the social sciences may find such laws, and correct predictions will become possible.
In contrast to determinism are those that believe in Free Will. Free will means that nothing is predetermined and that all actions are products of choices that people can make.
The belief in Free Will is also commonly known as libertarianism (nothing to do with the political movement). Of the many arguements the libertarians claim the most notorious is that if determinism is true, it absolves people of moral responsibility. For if it is not avoidable, how can a person be held accountable for their actions. That means the bank robber robbing a bank today can be traced back from a series of causes before his birth, yet our justice system punishes this man. Therefore he must have had the free will to decide to rob the bank.
What do you think is true or the most probabble?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Adam brings up another point in the Free Will/determinism deates of predestination and God's influence. Did God grant us free will or not.
Many people believe that in order to get to heaven you must lead a good life, If that life is already predestined then you really do not have the choice to accept God's will. Therefore the reward of heaven is not based around an individuals choices here, but God's predestined position for the individual. Is life merely living out a scenario or do indivduals get the chance to live a good life and thus are rewarded with heaven?
(I wanted to save religion for another post Adam)
A paper I wrote for my philosophy class dealt with the time factor. I'll try to summarize.
Richard Taylor is a fatalist who uses the "law of excluded middle" as an agruement for fatalism. He claims that truth is universal and goes beyond the boundaries of time. This means a future truth is a truth in the past as well. If something is true, it is always true no matter where in time you are.
The problem is in the way we percieve time, which is one dimensional. Now it is thought that Time is the fourth dimension, but we only percieve it as one dimensional. This means that our perceptions can never be complete since we are three dimensional beings. Can an arguement that goes beyond our level of perception be deemed true or valid. This future truth can never be realized by the human mind until it is part of the past.
The use of an omniscient such as God is used in many fatalist explanations. Though the question arises how can a being from another dimensional form exist in a way in which we can percieve them. Can we exist in a way to be able to communicate with a one dimensional being? I cannot think of a plausable way in which this could be accomplished.
There is no God. God is dead.
From the determinist perspective, all actions are simply reactions to, or the effects of some cause. What this does not explain are human behaviors that appear somewhat illogical, or that take place outside the confines of "nature and nurture" influences.
However, it is hard to seperate behaviors that have been spurred by factors and those generated solely from an individual. Individual expressions, as announced through the mediums of written word and art in general may be the most outstanding examples, although often these have been influenced by a creator's surroundings (but have the surroundings acted as a cause or merely an inspiration?). Altruism may be another example, but that may have a genetic basis, much like the one currently being sought that will supposedly link humans with a need to believe in a higher being.
Someone acting "illogically" is within the realm of human behavior which makes it fall into their belief that someday we will have knowledge of laws that govern human behavior just as we have laws that govern gravity.
Nature and Nurture are also known as heredity and environment. If all causes do not come from these two, where else do they come from?
If all actions are a result of heredity and the environment, then we are simply reacting and responding to elements out of our own control, which would lead to an acceptance of the determinist perspective. In order to make choices, we must have some autonomy. Where this originates, if it does, remains a web of hypotheses. Is it plausable to hold beliefs with no scientific or material support? .
To introduce a philosophy not yet mentioned,
Post a Comment