MacIntyre and Determinism
Behavior is quite an interesting aspect of man to observe. All day long we demonstrate diverse types of behavior, from eating certain foods to speaking in certain ways. But of most interest is rational behavior. Behavior is rational "if, and only if, it can be influenced, or inhibited by the adducing of some logically relevant consideration." (p.297) In his essay MacIntyre tries to show us that rational behavior is not causally determined, but that it comes out of our free will.
The discovery of causal explanations for our actions, and the like, shows, or tries to show, that we could not have done other than what we did. From this, then, there would be no point to morality, which has been at the forefront of human thought for ages. But then again, to say the human behavior is inexplicable is to deny all that we have learned from the sciences.
We have already given the definition for rational behavior, but in this definition we find a point which must be clarified, that of a logically relevant consideration. What exactly is a logically relevant consideration? Well, that is logically relevant will necessarily vary from case to case. And it can vary so much that MacIntyre even goes as far as saying that the "task of philosophy might almost be defined as the task of defining 'logical relevance'." (p. 297) Rational behavior is then said to be defined with reference to the possibility of altering it by some logically relevant consideration. Thus, to show that a behavior is rational is enough to show that it is not causally determined, in the sense of it being the effect of certain conditions outside of a person's control.
Being that there is rational behavior, it must follow that there is such a thing non-rational behavior. Non-rational behavior is, of course, behavior which does not take logically relevant considerations into account. Such an act can be said to be impulsive.
As in all philosophical discourse the opposing party usually proposes a counter-attack. In this case, the determinist has launched a three-stage counter attack against free actions. Firstly the determinist argues that, in the widest sense of the word cause, the giving of a reason may function as a cause. MacIntyre argues against this by saying that "to act because you were given reasons to act would not necessarily be to act in a causally determined way.
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.
Determinism, a doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will, especially when up against nature. An influential component found in naturalistic writing, London, Garland, and Crane each lend their writing to this movement, realism, modeled after the writings of Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Determinism, generally pessimistic, presents itself in the form of Koskoosh, an elderly, blind man left to die by his tribe. This indigenous, cold-climate tribe embraces the “survival of the fittest” mentality. Simply surviving was a burden for this tribe and they certainly did not have the resources to sustain a dependent person. The story mentions the good times when the dogs and people were fat, as
The process of making a decision previously held two paths, rational and irrational, with rational having the mind at work to think about what were the choices and irrational with no really engagement. Anything beyond that process of thought was not taken until the topic of System 1 and System 2 along with effects of “Relativity” were expressed in Thinking Fast and Slow, by Kahnemna and Predictably Irrational by Ariely, respectfully. Along with the other readings, the process of our decision making were no longer solely based on two very simplified and underdeveloped ideas, but as series of network and systems of decisions the minds functions through.
The connection between free will and moral responsibility has been a heavily debated topic by early philosophers with many ancient thinkers trying to demonstrate that humans either do have ultimate control over our actions and are not made by external forces or that humans do not have control and that the trajectory of our lives is pre-determined. The most common argument and the one I will focus on in this essay suggests that free will can not be correlated with randomness and, therefore, all other possibilities are exhausted.
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretion, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events, including human actions, are determined by forces outside the will of an individual, contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skepticism in a strong systematic order.
All in all, each view of the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
Rational choice theorist says that social emotions such as guilt, shame, and anxiety are feelings or thoughts that prevent us from doing things and giving in to our temptations. These social cues helps us to place boundaries on what is right and what is wrong and what the outcome of negative delinquent behaviors may be. Not everyone has the same idea of what behavior is rational versus
... The psychological argument Hume proposes supports his claim, and also suggests the cyclic behavior human beings take. While his philosophical contributions are more extreme than Locke’s, Hume’s definition of liberty and the psychological component to his proposition provide an argument for proving all things are determined, but free will is still possible.
Cook, K., Levi, M., O'Brien, J., & Faye, H. (2008). Introduction: The limits of rationality. In K. Cook & M. Levi (Eds.), The Limits of Rationality (pp. 02-47). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7M82yReFf4sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=social exchange and rational choice theory definition
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.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
The second example of when this case study involves the rational choice perspective is when Danny lied to Laura about having the job at GM. Danny used his rational thinking that if he told Laura he had a good job, that she would stay with Danny. Danny was desperate at this point and attempted to make Laura and the children stay. In his mind, he had to lie in order to gain his reward. He believed that the benefit of him saying he had a job would make his marriage
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).