Heusser                                                                                 Philosophy 100                                                                       SG #9b

 

Freedom and Determinism

 

Three Different Principles:

A. Free Will Thesis (FWT):

            1. FWT stated: People sometimes do things of their own free will.

                                                synonyms:         x freely chose to do an act a.

                                                                        it was up to x to do a, and s/he did it

            2. Evidence: The belief in FWT is pervasive

B. Determinism (DET):

            1. DET stated: Every event is caused by some prior event.

            2. Evidence:                  a. We can’t really think of an uncaused event.

                                                b. Science seems to have successfully found causes.

                                                c. The better predictors have more data.

C. Incompatibilism (INC):

1.      INC stated: Free Will and determinism are incompatible; that is, it is impossible for FWT and DET to both be true.

2.      Evidence: It is unclear how anyone can be both determined and free.

 

D. The Problem: The problem of freedom and determinism is that these three compelling propositions are inconsistent.

-------------

Three logically consistent positions:

(logically consistent means “there are not any other possible views that retain two of the three incompatible theses”)

 

1. Hard Determinism (HD): DET and INC are true, and so FWT is false -- no one ever does anything freely.

 

2. Libertarianism (L): INC and FWT are true, and so DET is false -- some events, in particular, those involved in human free action, are uncaused.

 

3. Soft Determinism (SD): DET and FWT are true, and so INC is false -- humans sometimes act freely despite the fact that their actions are caused.

(Also called “compatibilism”)

Hard Determinism

 

The Determinism Argument as advocated by Holbach, Ree, Skinner, and others:

1)      Whenever an agent acts, her actions are either determined or they are not.

2)      If an agent’s action is determined, then the agent could not have done otherwise.

3)      If an agent could not have done otherwise, then the agent does not act freely (against Soft Determinism).

4)      If an agent’s action is determined, then the agent does not act freely (from 2, 3).

5)      If an agent’s action is not determined, then it is a matter of pure chance (against Libertarianism).

6)      If an agent’s action is a matter of pure chance, then the agent does not act freely.

7)      If an agent’s action is not determined, then the agent does not act freely (from 5, 6).

8)      So, no agent ever acts freely (from 1, 4, 7).

 

(This argument is adopted from Dana Nelkin, UCLA)

The following are some typical arguments against Determinism.

 

1. The Argument from choice

 

1.         Sometimes people choose to do and then do things that are difficult.

2.         If 1, then sometimes people commit acts that are uncaused.

3.         If people sometimes commit acts that are uncaused, then DET is false.

4.         Therefore, DET is false.

 

2. The Argument from the Feeling of Freedom

 

1.         Sometimes we feel as if we act uncaused.

2.         If 1, then sometimes our acts are uncaused.

3.         If sometimes our acts are uncaused, then DET is false.

4.         Therefore, DET is false.

 

3. The Argument from Moral Responsibility

 

1.         If HD is true, then no one ever does anything freely.

2.         If no one ever does anything freely, then no one is morally responsible for their actions.

3.         Sometimes people are morally responsible for their actions.

4.         Therefore, HD is not true.

 

A.J. Ayer’s Argument against Indeterminism

 

[the moralist] is anxious to show that men are capable of acting freely in order to infer that they can be morally responsible for what they do. But if it is a matter of pure chance that a man should act in one way rather than another, he may be free but can hardly be responsible. And indeed when a man’s actions seems to us quite unpredictable, when, as we say, there is no knowing what he will do, we do not look upon him as a moral agent. We look upon him as a lunatic. (Freedom and Necessity p.482-3)

Ayer’s Soft Determinism (ASD):

S does act freely, and could have done otherwise, if and only if:

            I)         If S had not chosen to do A, S wouldn’t have done A

II)        S’s doing A was voluntary (in the sense in which a kleptomaniac’s actions are not voluntary).

            III)      No other person compelled S to do A.

 

Basically, for Ayer: To constrain means to cause but to cause does not mean to constrain.

 

An Objection from Causal Symmetry:

1.         If ASD is true, then some caused acts are free and others are not

            2.         Every cause equally necessitates its effect.

3.         If every cause necessitates its effects (every cause equally compels), then either every caused action is free or no caused actions are free.

            4.         Therefore, ASD is not true.

(Note: The top half of 1st page of this handout is revised with permission from Ted Sider, Rutgers University.)