The Contradictory Nature of Soft Determinism
I. Introduction
“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.
II. Exposition
In Nancy Holmstrom’s Firming Up Soft Determinism essay she set out to prove that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and therefore are in control of the sources of their actions. She believed it was possible to carry on the view of soft determinism and still hold that we are free to choose and we are at times able to do otherwise. She believed that the standard soft determinist position was inadequate. Her thought was that soft determinists had too limited of a notion of what is required for an agent to be in charge of their actions. The common soft determinist stance was that the
agent do what it pleased; the soft determinists simply ignore the question of whether the agent was in control of the sources that caused the actions. Holmstrom’s theory was that “just because some causes of desires and beliefs, such as brainwashing, make actions resulting from them unfree, it does not follow that any cause of desires and beliefs has the same implications for the freedom of actions resulting from them.” (Abel, 321)
Holmstrom believed that the notion of having control is the heart of the notion of freedom. In order to have control by Holmstrom’s theory the agent must be an important part of the causal process, and the agent must also be aware of its control. An example of this is illustrated by a person accidentally squashing an ant while walking. While the person did play an important part in the demise of the ant, the person was not aware of the action; therefore, the person was not in control of the ant’s life.
“Are we free agents? Can we be responsible for what we do” (Strawson 225) This is the issue that Strawson brings to light in his essay. He begins to explain the notion of free will and responsibility in a compatibilist’s view. They believe that free will and determinism are compatible
ABSTRACT: There are good reasons for determinism — the option for pure freedom of will proves to be a non-tenable position. However, this collides with the everyday experience of autonomy. The following argument will attempt to show that determinism and autonomy are compatible. (1) A first consideration going back to MacKay makes clear that I myself cannot foresee in principle my own determination; hence fatalism has lost its grounds. (2) From the perspective of physical determination, I show that quantum-physical indetermination is not at all in a position to explain autonomy, while from the perspective of systems theory physical determination and autonomy is well-compatible. (3) The possibility of knowledge denotes a further increase of such autonomy. From this perspective, acting is something like designing-oneself or choice-of-oneself. (4) Consciousness of not being fixed in principle now becomes a determining condition of my acting, which appears to be determined by autonomy. This explains the ineradicable conviction that freedom of will is essential for human beings. (5) I conclude that the autonomy of acting is greater the more that rational self-determination takes the place of stupid arbitrariness.
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
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
...pulated. Brainwashing is analogous to forces beyond our control. Frankfurt’s theory still holds, since we do not concern the origin of Sam’s second order desire. When he has a free will, it implies that he acts freely by selling out his company. In fact, Frankfurt seems to weaken the theory of determinism. If some external forces causally determine Sam’s the second order desire, then Sam cannot have desired otherwise. That is to say, he cannot have two versions of second order desire, neither of which allows him to have freedom of will or freedom of action. That is, Frankfurt’s theory leads to a totally different conclusion when Frankfurtean compatibilism does not agree with determinism.
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
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.
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.
Soft determinism attempts to make the disagreeing data of determinism and freedom compatible. The theory of soft determinism rests on three fundamental claims: (1) the deterministic concept that human behaviour is causally determined; (2) that there is freedom in voluntary behaviour, so long as there is no physical impediment or constraint upon the action; and (3) that the cause of the voluntary behaviour (which is possible in the absence of impediments or constraints) is an internal state of the agent of the action. According to soft determinism, therefore, we are responsible for our actions on o...
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.
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
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.
Soft determinism touts itself as a looser form of determinism; it maintains that a modicum of freedom can exist within determinism. For the soft determinist, the personality or character of the agent is still derived from environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary factors. The agent’s actions are still a result of this character. However, the soft determinist maintains that we are free because freedom is not a freedom from all causes but is a freedom from some causes. One might argue that there was no compulsion in the action of the killer; he knows the consequences of his actions and is aware that murder is wrong. If someone held a gun to his head and told him to stab the other individual, we could not rightly state that his actions were free if there is some external compulsion. His personality is created within a context that instills certain societal values and norms of behavior...
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
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).