This week we are studying the determinism/ freewill debate. This is an ongoing debate in philosophy that is like it sounds. Are all of our actions free? Or are all of our actions determined to occur (unfree)? Below, I’ve outlined the major positions including those of philosophers who take different stances on the debate. Study this debate closely, because I will be asking you to do a writing assignment on it. (Please also watch the two videos, Animator vs. Animation 1 and 2. Is the created figure in these videos free?)
What does it mean to be free?
Generally to be free means that there is some course of action (call it X), and that X is within your power. Freewill is not just that we have certain skills, but that we also have the power to perform them. If you are tied down to a chair, you are not free to walk around the room. Here is a technical definition of freewill: you do perform action X and you could have done otherwise. Being free is more complex than something like pain. If you are in pain, you are just that—in pain. But if you are free, there is more going on. Freedom means we can deliberate about what to do, it means that the future seems “opened.” Freedom also entails that we should be praised and blamed for our actions, since we have a choice.
What does it mean to be determined?
Just as it is impossible for ice not to freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, so it is impossible for the present not to be fixed based on the past and the laws of nature. Determinism means that there is exactly one possible future. Assuming that we knew every law in the universe, we could predict the outcome of events with total accuracy. The determinist explains murder by tracing the history of nature/nurture up to the present moment. Why did the murder occur? Well, the murderer was beaten up by his father, and the kids picked on him at school. Plus, he had an angry temperament. Every moment of the murderer’s life is seen by the determinist as a reason for the murders he will eventually commit. As long as we know the details, we can explain and predict outcomes. If determinism is true, then we cannot be praised or blamed for our actions since we have no control over them.
Notice the difference here between determinism and fatalism. An example of fatalism is thinking that the world is going to end in the year 2028. This belief is independent of the past and laws of nature. Fatalists believe that no matter what else happens, some future event will occur. Determinists believe that because of the past and the laws of nature, the present and future cannot be any other way. It is important to understand this distinction.
Now, there are three different positions you can take. You can believe in freewill (be a freewillist), you can believe in determinism (be a determinist), or you can believe that freewill and determinism are compatible (be a compatibilist). In professional philosophy, these categories can get more complicated sometimes, but for our purposes this will suffice. Below, I give a brief description of some philosophers who take these positions.
Baron D’Holbach (1723-1789 c.e.): A Determinist
D’Holbach was an 18th century French philosopher and atheist. He relied on experience and science (he was an empiricist). He believed that man is on a line that nature commands him to follow. He believed that man was no different than a machine. Man is subject to the laws of nature just like any other physical object.
D’Holbach explained voluntary behavior (behavior we supposedly choose) through desire. Every time we choose anything we are simply choosing the stronger desire. If you choose to drink, it is because of your desire to satisfy your thirst. If you are thirsty and you choose not to drink something because you think it might be poisoned, then this is because of your desire to stay alive. If you decide to raise your arm to show that determinism is false, this is simply your desire to show that you are free. All our actions can be explained by our disposition to follow our strongest desire. In both moral and the physical world, everything is a natural consequence of causes according to D’Holbach.
William James (1842-1910 c.e.): A Freewillist
William James, an American philosopher and psychologist, believed in freewill. However, he knew how strong the argument for determinism is, so he didn’t explicitly argue against. What he argued is that a belief in freewill is more rational. James was a pragmatist so he believed that we should believe and act in ways that are practical and rational for us.
James himself decided to view the world as though we have freewill since it is a more optimistic view of the universe. If there is freewill, we at least know that we as humans can have some affect in terms of making the world a better place. If we believe that the world is determined, then we must take a pessimistic view of the universe. Kids get murdered, people get raped, and nations get attacked—according to the determinist, the laws of nature and the past have led to these things and there’s nothing we can do about it. Isn’t this a bleak view of things?
David Hume: A Compatiblist
When we first studied Hume, we came across his strange idea of cause and effect. Hume said there is no necessary connection between cause and effect. We think one thing causes another because we have observed this cause and effect relationship in the past (review the lecture on Hume if necessary).
Hume applied this principle to the determinism/ freewill debate. He said that there is no completely random action, that our actions are dictated by our upbringing and psychological makeup to an extent. In other words, the cause and effect relationship between the laws of nature and our actions is strong, but our actions still could be otherwise. Think about this. If a person (call him Steve) is arrogant, he is most likely to gloat every time he wins a game. It’s in his nature to do so. But, it’s not necessarily the case that he will gloat. Maybe Steve will have a day where he is feeling more generous and he will not gloat when he wins a game. It won’t happen often, but it will happen, says Hume. Thus, determinism and freewill can, seemingly, co-exist.
Another Thing to Consider
Something else that factors into the determinism/ freewill debate is the way the world functions at the level of quantum physics. The quantum level of the world is distinguished from the way the world functions at the level of Newtonian physics. Objects at the Newtonian level follow the laws we are used to—when the cue-ball hits the 8-ball we can measure the velocity of the cue and we can understand the connection between the two. At the quantum level, things are not so simple. There are certain aspects of the quantum world that refuse to be measured.
Now, this is an extremely complex issue that scientists, philosophers, and others are still discussing. However, the point is that there do seem to be some elements of the quantum world that are completely random. This would seem to show that the world is not fully determined. The quantum level of the world is, after all, still part of the world.
But, keep in mind that just because there is evidence that there are parts of the world that are not determined, it does not necessarily follow that humans are not still determined. Some parts of the world could be random, and our actions could still be determined for other reasons.
It is also possible that, since we have so much to learn about quantum physics, we simply haven't discovered some underlying determinism that is actually present.