In this essay I will give a clear and knowledgeable understanding of determinism by carefully explaining and comparing hard determinism and soft determinism. It will also be clarified that if either hard or soft determinism were true then there still would be a positive point to human action. Furthermore I will acknowledge that if one were to take on the views of a hard determinist then they would have to change both their emotional and personal relationships with other people. However, if one were to take on the view of a soft determinist then they would not have to change their relationship or opinions of people.
Determinism is the philosophical view that every event that takes place can be explained. In other words every event that occurs, happens as a result of an event or set of events that have occurred before it. (Hoefer, 2005) According to this theory, if determinism is truethen, given the actual past, only one future is possible at any moment in time.
Although determinists follow the same theory of determinism there are two different types of determinists: Hard determinists and Soft determinists.
Both types of determinists share the same belief that everything is determined on a physical level that is, that all events that transpire within nature are determined by events that have happened before it. However they come into conflict when the discussion arises about non – physical determinants.
Hard determinists believe that ones thoughts, decisions and actions are also determined by a set of events before them. The reason for this is that hard determinists view actions in the same category as events. Therefore if every event is caused by actions before it, the one taking the action could not have been able to act any differently. This is a very hard theory for some to comprehend, as they believe that if we do not have free will one is not in control of their actions and do not have a freedom of choice. (Nagel, 1987)
Soft determinist’s although may believe that some decisions are determined they reject the meaning that hard determinists give to the words ‘free will’ and ‘moral responsibility’. Soft determinists believe that when someone states that they have made a free -will choice although they may know the decision is determined they went through the process of knowing that they are doing the choosing, that they had considered all other options and that no-one either externally or internally had corrupted their decision or made them choose a different option.
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
This is a view that is very attuned with (accepting) determinism. Determinism states that necessary causes must be for the occurrence to occur. This deterministic cause and effect relationship is apparent in the physical world. Hard-believing determinists see determinism as being exclusive of free will. Searle, being a materialist, views humans as just another material substance.
Firstly, the determinist argue that “everything we do is cause by forces over which we have no control (James & Stuart Rachels 110). The free will this theory speaks of is most likely on the biological level, as there are many natural events that occur that people have no control over. For example, the act of cellular reproduction, this
According to this theory, if determinism is correct, based any individuals past and prior experiences there is only one future that is possible for that particular individual. There are two different types of determinism: Hard determinism and Soft determinism. Both types of determinism have the same principles; that every action that happens in an individual’s life is determined on a physical level and that all life events are determined by previous life events.
Hard determinist view free will as incompatible with determinism, and therefore it does not exist. These philosophers, however, define free will as making decision in a random, uncaused way. B.F. Skinner would be an example of a hard determinist, where he simply does not accept the existence of freedom of will. David Hume, a 17th century philosopher, helped bring about soft determinism. He was the first to argue that maybe the root of the free will problem lied in the definition of free will. Instead of humans making decision in uncaused ways, maybe being free is doing what you want to do. By predicting what you want to do; to make you decision based on aspirations or desires, enables the concept of free will to work in the context of the determinist theory. Those who choose to accept both our choices being determined by outside factors, and accept that humans have the ability to make their own decisions based on these pressures, believe in the theory of compatibilism. Compatibilists, like A.J Ayer and Susan Wolf, define and defend their acceptance of both determinism and the existence of free will. Ayer finds two issues with “hard” compatibilism. He doubts that every event has a direct cause, which is at the core of determinism. While scientists have laws and theories that determine how actions are caused, like gravity and motion, there are still phenomena that science cannot explain their causes.
Do humans have freewill to decide what can what they can choose to do, or are they dictated by external forces the moment they come into existence and do have freewill? A question that many people wonder about, and tries to find ways to answer it in a few different ways, for instance following the determinism stance where humans have no free will, with their lives being dictated by an external force. While in contrast people who believe in libertarianism, by having a stance that shows humans to have freewill without any choice being influenced by an external force. However, soft determinism, or Compatibilism is stance that people take to allow free will to coexist with external forces guiding individuals, but not to an uncontrollable state. Soft determinism allows for humans to have freewill, while not totally following an unknown, or external force, as humans are the main cause for their actions, while those actions are still influences by some means, and that
The determinist believes that man cannot act freely if his actions are causally determined. As Philosopher A.J. Ayer suggests in Freedom and Necessity, if a man has a choice between choosing A or B, there will be a consistent explanation
In determining the free will of a human’s nature many philosophers want to solve the dilemma of determinism. The dilemma of determinism is as follows (Rowe, p.587):
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
“There is a continuum between free and unfree, with many or most acts lying somewhere in between.” (Abel, 322) This statement is a good summation of how Nancy Holmstrom’s view of free will allows for degrees of freedom depending on the agent’s control over the situation. Holmstrom’s main purpose in her Firming Up Soft Determinism essay was to show that people can have control over the source of their actions, meaning that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and because of this they have free will. She also tried to show that her view of soft determinism was compatible with free will and moral responsibility. While Holmstrom’s theory about the self’s being in control, willingness to participate, and awareness of an act causes the act to be free, has some merit, her choice to incorporate soft determinism ultimately proved to invalidate her theory.
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Determinism currently takes two related forms: hard determinism and soft determinism [1][1]. Hard determinism claims that the human personality is subject to, and a product of, natural forces. All of our choices can be accounted for by reference to environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary (biological) causes. Our total character is a product of these environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary forces, thus our beliefs, desires, values and habits are all outside of our control. The hard determinist, therefore, claims that our choices are determined by these factors; free will is an illusion because the choices and decisions we make are derived from our character, which is completely out of our control in creating. An example might help illustrate this point. Consider a man who has just repeatedly stabbed another man outside of a bar; the other man is dead. The hard determinist would argue that there were factors outside of the killer’s control which led him to this action. As a child, he was constantly beaten by his father and was the object of ridicule and contempt of his classmates. This trend of hard luck would continue all his life. Coupled with the fact that he has a gene that has been identified with male aggression, he could not control himself when he pulled the knife out and started stabbing the other man. All this aggression, and all this history were the determinate cause of his action.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
Philosophy can be broken down into many different time periods and many different philosophers who each have beliefs on different ideas. A prevalent topic in philosophy is the idea of personal freedoms and the idea of determinism and why and how events take place. There are many different views on determinism; there is the default form determinism, hard determinism, indeterminism, and soft determinism. For determinism, three philosophers who are well known on the subject of determinism are Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach, Robert Kane, and John Stuart Mill’s. They are all different forms of determinists.