Ronnie MillerApril 23, 2015PHI 101

In this paper I will defend compatibilism meaning free will is compatible with universal causal determinism. Incompatiblism assumes that free will cannot be compatible with determinism. Although this is heavily debated in philosophy it seems strange that people could be so dead certain on either side (100 percent determinist or 100 percent free will) or that these views are as controversial as they are. However, these matters can come into play when we consider the idea of moral responsibility and blame. I argue that some things can be predetermined by the laws of nature or from past instances, humans can still have an internal choice, therefore both determined factors and free will can exist in the same universe. Determinism is a belief that all actions are pre-determined by factors beyond real human control. Some would take this to mean that all things are guided by the will of some deity. Those who have no spiritual belief would immediately jump to denounce this. However, the assumption that made more sense to me was that things are put into motion by the universe. In 1814, Pierre-Simon Laplace stated We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. This would be best explained as the hard determinist point of view. Meaning that if we could see or know everything about the universe down to the last molecule we could predict everything that could happen. We see small forms of this as meteorologists use their understanding of how weather works to predict the conditions for the next week and are normally fairly accurate. Economists use their understandings to predict how people will react financially given various external factors. This brings into question the concept of moral responsibility. Can we really hold someone accountable for something they could not otherwise do? It may be considered unfair to assign blame and punishment to someone that wasnt given a choice due to causes that happened long before they were thought of and beyond what they could ever understand. However, could the punishment not also be looked at this way? If a person commits a heinous crime and argues that the alignment of the galaxy determined their actions, could their being punished also be fated? Cause: crime committed, effect: adequate punishment. So while it seems a bit narrow, hard determinism may not be that far of a reach given what we understand, and still dont understand, about the universe and how living things interact with it.The concept of free will is understood to mean that other alternatives were possible. The problem with trying argue for free will is that there is no single way to define it fully. After all we are all constrained by the laws of nature and physics. Also we are confined be to the rule of law unless we want most of our freedoms taken away. Of all the different explanations that have been given to try and explain what free will should mean, it all seems to come down to choice and whether or not we truly have it. For this argument I will define free will as the ability of a mind to perform an action caused by psychological states alone. Knowing right from wrong and all the risk and rewards behind performing a certain action, one can make the choice whether or not to follow through on said action. There are no restraints on the choice. Free will is a huge basis for holding one accountable for his or her actions. It put the blame squarely on the person that performed the action as it is assumed that they knew the morally correct option and was fully capable of electing to do differently. Its worth noting that mental disorders can undermine free will as it is believed that while there is nothing not constraining someone with a condition, these people are normally unable to do anything other than what they do. Can one perform an action completely uncaused? This is somewhat unlikely. Every decided action is in reaction to some sort of belief or desire. So why then couldnt they both occupy the same space? Conditional freedom states that actions are the result of past experiences. Meaning that one reacts to a given situation based on upbringing, past experiences, education, or something such as genetics. Two people with very different backgrounds can react completely opposite to the exact same situation. So while the actions arent caused my something intangible that happened billions of years before, this doesnt equate with having a choice necessarily. These factors also shape our wants, tastes, and personalities. People, especially in our youth, adopt personalities all the time. Pop culture carries heavy influence when it comes to how people make certain decisions. While we may be free to choose what clothes to wear, what to drive, and what to pay attention to we are bombarded by suggestions as to actions we should be taking. This is not recent as societies have always been influenced by some form or media, its just that for most of our history it was written. It would seem that most or all people have been influenced and molded by something external. So, out of all the people that have every existed it could be thought that very few of us have ever had an original idea, or a thought, desire, and personality that was exclusive to ourselves. Lets say that I am holding a wine glass over concrete. If this glass falls gravity takes over and the glass will shatter. Gravity is dictated by the laws of the universe. The result is inevitable. The only thing restraining that result is my grasp and the choice I make whether to drop it. In this I have no cause to drop the glass, but no real cause not to. I have no real fondness for that particular glass. After all, theres no wine in it. Plus, I have more glasses. However, I harbor no ill will toward the glass, and may want to drink later, without getting another out. I feel like it could be really interesting to see and hear what would happen when it collides with the surface yet I realize I could more than likely look something like that up on YouTube. Id probably not enjoy cleaning up glass but the pavement is such that it would be easy to sweep up quickly. My mood finds that I could either put the glass back and go about my day or enjoy the experiment in glass smashing. My point is, at want point do we completely have freedom of choice without causation and how deeply can you measure cause? It would seem in this scenario that I am left with nothing but the choice to do A or B. Its likely that we are never at a point mentally were we are that equal in our pros and cons. The hard determinism point of view is a hard to comprehend when it comes to choices in personal lives. This would mean that every thought, move, and minute action I made was not of my own and was set into motion long ago. But our lives seem to be filled with different paths that were arbitrarily taken without and real thought or natural cause. If true, every moment of my life, even down to my marriage, was destined due to cosmic forces. This takes into account that: (1) us happening upon each other in the manner we did, which seems random if anything, (2) that we clicked enough to agree to date each other. Either of us could have decided otherwise putting the whole thing to rest. (3) Her agreeing to marry me, which was a choice 100% left to her and the seemingly free choice to refuse, (4) her now shamelessly passing gas on me in bed at night. I have a real problem with the last one. Ive insisted many time that it is more than reasonable that she has the free will to choose otherwise. Turning another direction, for instance. I feel as if she has a plethora of other options at her disposal and consciously refuses to do anything differently, because she thinks its hilarious. To be fair to the determinist view, it could be said the hilarity in itself could be preventing her from making what I feel is the morally responsible thing to do. The need to laugh at my disgust of her own flatulence until she cant breathe is a festering mental barrier that prevents her from selecting another alternative. In this sense, she is akin to a kleptomaniac as while she is seemingly capable of acting diversely her mind may not allow her to willingly examine another option and thus the act is determined. Regardless, it smells of sulfuric hellfire and I just want a good nights sleep. Id say that determinism has too narrow of a definition and free wills is too broad and indecisive. But they both fair well when it comes to interacting in the same world. Certain things can be left without alternatives decided by a splitting of atoms an unquantifiable amount of time ago. Yet I feel as if there is too much of an opening for chance and randomness for it to be ultimately decided that we are left with no more choice than a rock falling down a hill. 5