Determinism of Human Behavior
Have you ever wondered why we do the things we do? Why might we get
physical when we are angry? Why might we cry when we’re in pain? Why?
What motivates us to behave the way we do in the numerous different
situations we get ourselves into? Although there are many different
answers that people could give us, there are two theories in
particular that are highly debated with each other. One argument is
that behaviour is determined through free will, known as
libertarianism. Free will, by definition, is the notion that we are
free to make our own decisions and are thus in control of our
behaviour. By this, however, it is not meant that you can behave in a
way completely out of your ability (like lay an egg or fly) just
because you are in control; it means free will in the sense of
rational behaviour within your capacity. The other argument is based
on determinism, which indicates that all our actions are the effects
of external or internal forces over which we have no control (i.e. no
free will). This is more specifically known as hard determinism. The
key difference between determinists and libertarians is that while the
former believe that our behaviour is fundamentally the result of
drives, the latter believe that we behave the way we do without there
being any compulsion to do so[1]. These opposing theories have been
the subject of much psychological controversy. Both theories have
valid points of view, both make sense; hence, does our behaviour
result from forces over which we have no control or do we have free
choice to behave as we wish? I.e. Libertarianism or Determinism?
Libertarianism, the b...
... middle of paper ...
...:
Washington Square Press (reprinted 1952).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Richards, Steven. Determinism and Freewill. [Online] Available:
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/determinismandfreewill.htm,
5/12/04.
[2] Peel, Howard. Freewill and Determinism. [Online] Available:
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/themindzone/freewill.html, 5/12/04.
[3] Machan, Tibor. A Brief Defence of Free Will. [Online] Available:
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/TiborMachan/DefenseOfFreeWill.html,
6/12/04.
[4] Watson, J.B. (1930) Behaviourism. New York: W.W Norton (reprinted
1970).
[5] Freud, S. (1904) Psychopathology in Everyday Life. Reprinted in
Freud, S., A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, New York:
Washington Square Press (reprinted 1952).
“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.
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
Determinism, particularly pre-determinism, states that the origin of creation controls when and why all events of the past, present, and future occur, which decisively contradicts the belief in free will of the majority of humans in today’s society. Slaughterhouse-Five follows the life of Billy Pilgrim, a young man who has become “unstuck” in time. The novel traces Billy’s experiences during the bombing of Dresden in World War II, an encounter with extraterrestrials, called Tralfamadorians, and throughout his domestic life as a father, husband, and optometrist. In particular, Kurt Vonnegut explores the bombing of Dresden and the effects thereof on Billy Pilgrim, forming Billy into an apparently insane character who speaks of extraterrestrials and time travel. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut questions the practicality of attempting to express free will in society and emphasizes the importance of the present moment as opposed to the past and future through the characterization of Billy Pilgrim, the manipulation of time throughout the plot and the deterministic ideals of extraterrestrials.
Anders Behring Breivik was a Norwegian extremist and a terrorist who had bombed a government building and then shot and killed a number of youths at a camp. His actions were not impulsive, but instead meticulously planned. For years he fostered feelings of hatred and aggression, particularly after his failed businesses and his involvement with the right wing terror organization whose ideology was on anti-Islam and anti-mulitculturism. Breivik perceived that Muslims were invading Europe and conspiring with politicians to take over Norway. Hence, his decision to destroy the present and future politicians of government. Allport (1920), in his theory of Social Facilitation, fleshes out the impression that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behaviour (McLeod, 2007).
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
Free will is the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Human beings are mindful beings. By proposing that people can choose diverse ways to answer to a condition, it specifies the involvement of free will. On the other hand, as science remains to uncover new conclusions on human nature, it is shown that a huge deal of our own existence is the outcome of our background, education or organic nature, factors that are away from our control. A lot of our choices and experiences in life have been determined already. The problem between determinism and free will is that there are solid opinions that back up both sides. Noticeable philosophers have claimed these topics passionately. From observing their opinions, it is obvious that free will is incomplete and that inside the main source of human selections, are determined elements.
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.
The dilemma of determinism is an issue that has led to widespread debate over whether or not people have free will. The dilemma of determinism follows as such; (A) if determinism is true, we are not responsible, since our choices are determined by factors we can’t control, (B) Indeterminism is true, we are not responsible, since every choice happens by chance, (C) But either determinism or indeterminism is true, (D) Therefore, we are not morally responsible for what we do. Simply, the dilemma states that we cannot be free and therefore are not responsible for our choices. This dilemma has been approached by some people called compatibilists who believe that we can be responsible for our choices even though the choice was determined in advance.
Applying Operant Conditioning to Human Behaviour Operant conditioning is when a way of learning by consequence. To put it basic, an action which is rewarded is more likely to be repeated, along with an action that is punished is less likely to be repeated. To apply this to an example of human behaviour, young children may have shaped behaviour due to operant conditioning; where desireable behaviour is rewarded (e.g. by giving a toy) the behaviour is being positively reinforced and is likely to occur. If a young child behaves in an undesirable way, then they may be punished (e.g. a toy being taken away from them) therefore this behaviour is negatively reinforced and is less likely to reoccur. A dentist tried to soothe the fears of his young patients by showing them cartoons whilst drilling their teeth.
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
In the sceniro, a friend explains that he and his partner are extreamly happy in there new long-term relationship. They explain that the key to their relationship, and thus their happiness, is that they let their partner control everything that they do. The following must explain if this relationship uses freedom or determinism as the basis of their relationship. Although the actions of both partners are determined by the other, I do not believe this scenario has anything to do with determinism. However, to properly answer this question we must first define determinism and its relationship with free will.
Determinism argues that human behaviour is accounted for by external or internal forces that is beyond our control, therefore suggests that behaviour is predetermined and humans cannot be held responsible. Free will, however, argues that humans are free to live in whatever way we choose. Free will suggests that humans are free from independent influences, and our actions and behaviours are a result of our choices, therefore making it our responsibility. (Alexander & Staub, 1956). Criminals are not responsible for their actions as criminal behaviour is predetermined by independent forces such as genetic vulnerability and is not a result of free will.
Human behavior is a loosely defined foundation for individuality, generally considered to be influenced and developed by the environment. However, recent molecular studies have exposed genetic factors that suggest a more biological origin for behavior. Gene segments in the genome of humans and other animals have been identified and associated with particular behavioral traits. Is it possible that the presence or absence of even a single gene may predispose one to alcoholism, increased irritability, or enhanced intelligence? Clearly exploration of the nature versus nurture argument with regard to genetic predisposition has social, political, and legal significance.
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 know on the subject of determinism are Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach, Robert Kane, and John Stuart Mill’s as they are all different forms of determinist. Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach largely discuss the ideals or default determinism and what specifically makes an event happen. Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach also talks about the ideas of hard determinism. Robert Kane’s man focus is on how determinism differs from indeterminism and who is responsible for events taking place, Kane is also responsible
Being yourself, being who you are. When you hear those two lines you may think they mean the same thing, but do they? Think about it, you were born into this world as a tiny little baby with no ideas, or preferences, but as you grew you developed a personal identity. The question is, did it really develop o was it with you to begin with? Such questions are what lead to the great debate of nature vs nurture, one of the oldest debates in psychology. The uses of the terms “nature” and “nurture” have been referred to as the roles of heredity and environment respectively in human development. Some scientists believe that human beings behave as they do in response to genetic predisposition. This is known as the nature theory of human behavior and it is the view espoused by naturalists (Scott, 1995). Other