Free Will Notes
Libertarianism is a philosophical stance which states that:
(a)We can exercise free will (which includes having the freedom
to act as well as to have certain thoughts, opinions, and
desires).
(b)We are not constrained by antecedent causes (we might be
influenced by a variety of factors, but we are not forced by
them to act a certain way).
(c)We could have done otherwise (if the universe were reset to an
earlier instant, we could have chosen to do another action).
The appeal of libertarianism is that we feel like we have free will
and it matches how we would normally perceive the world.
The problem of libertarianism is that it requires that we are not
constrained by antecedent causes, which is contradictory to
universal causation. This states that since all physical actions have
antecedent causes, and since humans are physical, then everything
we do must have antecedent causes. Hence, free will does not exist
to a determinist.
Hard determinism is a philosophical stance which states that:
(P1) We live in a universe where every action has antecedent
causes.
(P2) Human actions are within the universe.
(Cn.) Therefore, human actions have antecedent causes and there
is no free will.
The appeal of hard determinism is it matches what we know about a
causal universe.
The problem of hard determinism is that it goes against our
empirical knowledge about the universe. Additionally, if there was
no free will, then this would mean that morality does not exist
because no one can choose what to do, hence we should not praise
nor condemn anybody.
Even if one is unconvinced about hard determinism – for example, is
the mind really physical? – then there are other arguments about
determinism:
Psychological determinism states that our biological and
genetic nature compels us to act a certain way. For example, a
certain gene may lead to more violent behaviour, thus limiting
agency.
Economic/Cultural determinism states that we are nurtured by
society to act a certain way. For example, poorer people are
more likely to commit crimes, while religious people may
never choose to eat certain foods, limiting agency.
There are similar concepts related to determinism but are not the
same:
Fatalism, like determinism, refers to the idea that there are
events which are inevitable, but there are multiple pathways to
lead to the determined event, as opposed to determinism
stating that there was only one pathway to begin with.
Predestination refers to the idea that, since He is omniscient
and created the universe, then God has already decided
whether we go to Heaven or to Hell.
Compatibilists agree that we live in a deterministic universe.
However, they try to find a way to reconcile with the determinism’s
biggest implication that morality does not exist, and we instead
have moral agency and moral responsibility.
David Hume: Classical Compatibilism
Hume’s classical compatibilism states that free will and
determinism are compatible because he disagreed with the
conventional definition of free will. Instead of being the ability to act
without any constraints, Hume argued that free will is the ability to
act in accordance with our desires and intentions. He argued that
while our actions may be causally determined by physical laws
(though this is not certainly the case because of Hume’s problem of
induction), our actions are still our own. Thus, even in a
deterministic universe, we still have free will because we are able to
act according to our natures.
Daniel Dennett: Determinism exists, but we have mental flexibility
Dennett uses his analogy of a female sphex wasp to make
compatible both human free will and determinism. Unlike the sphex
which mindlessly repeats the same action ad infinitum until she
dies, a human has the rationality and intelligence to make informed
decisions. This is a type of flexibility – or freedom – that the sphex
lacks. Therefore, although he admits that our behaviour is still
determined by antecedent factors, Dennett argues that free will is
the experience of reflection and rational consideration to different
possibilities.
Peter Strawson: Determinism exists, but it is impossible to believe in
it
Although Peter Strawson acknowledged that determinism was
probably true, he argued that it was near-impossible to accept the
implications of determinism in practice. If we did so, we would have
to deny our ‘participant reactive attitudes’ – for example, if someone
were to yell racial slurs at another, then one would need to be
objective and suppress feelings of hurt. Strawson argues that this is
not how we should, or even could, live our lives. Ultimately,
Strawson argues that ‘participant reactive attitudes’ are so
ingrained in us that accepting determinism would not actually alter
our moral experiences.
Peter Van Inwagen: Libertarianism is less ‘mysterious’ than
determinism
Van Inwagen states that both determinism and libertarianism exist
as a dichotomy – either humans completely have free will, or
completely do not. Additionally, Van Inwagen states that both
indeterminism and libertarianism also exist as a dichotomy –
randomness is a completely separate concept from free will.
Therefore, since morality necessitates free will, if morality exists,
then free will exists. Since we feel that morality exists, and
determinism is more ‘mysterious’ and harder to accept, then,
according to the principle of Occam’s Razor (you should accept the
simpler possibility), we should accept the less ‘mysterious’ stance –
that is, morality, and therefore free will, exists.
Indeterminism is the belief that not all events are causally-
determined by antecedent causes and are therefore random to an
extent. Indeterminism states that, as a result of Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle, particles on a quantum scale seem to be
random instead of following the principle of universal causation.
This means that determinism may not be true, yet this randomness
is also not the freedom of choice advocated for by libertarianism.
Moral responsibility refers to the idea that we praise or condemn
other people’s actions. Moral responsibility relies on the Principle of
Alternate Possibilities, which means that a person should not be
held morally responsible if they could not have done otherwise.
Moral luck challenges the idea that we can be held morally
responsible. Some people are born better looking or smarter or
richer than others, but we usually assign praise to them as if they
had achieved this through their own efforts. As a result, determinism
leads to a situation where we cannot rationally say that people can
be morally accountable for what they had no choice but to do,
according to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.
