The Free Will/Determinism Debate: Exploring Philosophical Notions

Before delving into the intricate debate surrounding Free Will and Determinism, it is imperative to establish a clear understanding of each term. Determinism, in its essence, posits that "everything that happens is caused to happen" (Clifford Williams, "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue," pg. 3). This perspective, championed by characters like Daniel in Williams' dialogue, asserts that every event has a cause, and if circumstances were repeated identically, the outcome would remain unchanged.

David Hume provides further insight into determinism, stating, "It is universally allowed that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause, that no other effect in such particular circumstances could possibly have resulted from it" (Hume, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," pg.

54). In essence, determinism posits that everything has a cause, and life operates as a series of cause-and-effect events.

Determinism: Cause and Effect

Daniel, representing the deterministic ideology in Williams' dialogue, presents a compelling argument.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Dialogue

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

He contends that science has identified causes for numerous events, including those related to human behavior. This extensive list of causally explained events provides substantial grounds for believing that all events are indeed caused. For instance, if the lights in a building suddenly go out, there must be a reason for this occurrence, even if the cause remains unknown.

However, Frederick, the proponent of free will, challenges this reasoning. He argues that science has only uncovered causes for a limited subset of events.

The knowledge we possess today is relatively recent, spanning just a few centuries, and does not cover the entirety of human history. Relying on this limited evidence to support determinism, according to Frederick, is unfounded. He likens it to observing one patch of yellow, dead grass and concluding that all grass is yellow, which appears illogical.

Daniel responds by clarifying the reasonable bounds of induction. He draws an analogy: if one were to drop one hundred objects of varying shapes, sizes, and weights and they all fell to the ground, it would be a reasonable induction to assume that all objects obey the law of gravity. Similarly, science has scrutinized thousands of events and consistently discovered their causes. Therefore, Daniel contends that it is not only reasonable but necessary to infer that all events, including human actions, are causally determined.

However, there exists a notable anomaly in the field of science—Quantum Mechanics. Within this realm, the behavior of subatomic particles, such as quarks and the emission of photons by electrons, appears entirely random. This randomness challenges the deterministic perspective, as it suggests that not all events have discernible causes. Yet, determinists argue that the absence of a known cause does not negate the possibility of one existing.

Challenges and Contradictions

Nonetheless, the deterministic argument encounters challenges and contradictions. One significant contradiction arises from Daniel's earlier assertion that science has provided enough evidence to infer determinism. In response to evidence supporting free will, determinists often resort to the argument that the cause remains undiscovered. This stance contradicts their previous assertion that sufficient evidence exists for determinism, thus undermining their own argument.

Moreover, claiming that causes exist but remain unknown renders determinism non-empirical. A legitimate theory must possess the potential for falsification. By asserting that causes exist but are undiscovered, determinists eliminate the possibility of proving their theory wrong, rendering it unfalsifiable and, therefore, questionable as a valid theory.

Despite these challenges, determinism boasts a robust foundation based on compelling evidence. From this perspective, the holes in the theory appear minor, and the preponderance of evidence lends support to its validity. However, it is crucial to explore the free will theory before drawing final conclusions.

Free Will: The Power of Choice

Free will, in contrast to determinism, asserts that individuals possess the ability to consciously and willingly make choices and act upon those decisions under their own volition. It postulates that nothing is predetermined or caused, and that human beings are free from external constraints in their decision-making process.

Frederick, an advocate for free will, presents two primary arguments to support this perspective. Firstly, he contends that free will is evident in our daily lives through the process of deliberation. Deliberation involves weighing the advantages and disadvantages of various choices and selecting the option that aligns with one's needs and preferences at a given moment. Since no external constraints limit this choice, it is considered a free decision.

However, critics argue that this argument relies on subjective feelings and perceptions. While individuals may perceive themselves as deliberating freely, they cannot account for potential internal constraints that influence their decisions. These hidden influences may lead them to believe in free will when, in reality, their choices are predetermined.

Frederick's second argument for free will centers on the concept that individuals could have chosen differently from their actual choices. For example, when faced with options, individuals may choose one over another, but the existence of alternatives suggests free will. Critics, however, highlight that true identity and character may influence choices, making them predictable despite the presence of alternatives.

Reconciling Determinism and Free Will

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre offers a perspective that reconciles the predictability of human behavior with the notion of free will. Sartre posits that human actions are determined by character and situation, which exhibit regularities. While this predictability aligns with determinism, he argues that individuals possess the freedom to choose their character.

According to Sartre, the fundamental choice of character is the foundation of all decisions. People can change their character, thus altering their behavior and decisions. While character-based actions may be predictable, the ability to redefine one's character represents the exercise of free will. In this view, the predictability of human nature coexists with free will, resolving the apparent conflict.

Responsibility within Determinism

One significant challenge within the determinism framework is the concept of responsibility. Responsibility often appears closely tied to free will, making it challenging to reconcile with deterministic views. However, David Hume introduces the notion of "Natural Necessity" within determinism.

Hume explains that causation in natural necessity operates through regularities, with events of kind A consistently followed by events of kind B. Although causation does not involve a necessary force, it implies that actions are determined by motivations, morals, and character. Responsibility within determinism arises from the idea that actions have a cause, specifically one's character and motivations.

Conversely, some argue that determinism negates responsibility entirely. If one's fundamental character is determined by factors beyond their control, then holding individuals responsible for their character-based actions seems unjust. This perspective challenges the compatibility of responsibility and determinism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Free Will/Determinism debate grapples with profound philosophical questions about the nature of human choice and action. While determinism posits that everything has a cause and operates through natural necessity, free will emphasizes the power of conscious choice and decision-making.

Philosophers like David Hume and Jean-Paul Sartre have sought to reconcile these perspectives. Hume's concept of "Natural Necessity" suggests that causation operates through regularities, allowing for predictability within human behavior. Sartre's view suggests that while human actions may be predictable based on character and situation, individuals possess the freedom to redefine their character, introducing an element of free will.

Ultimately, the compatibility of responsibility and determinism remains a subject of debate. While determinists argue that responsibility stems from character-based causes, critics question the fairness of holding individuals responsible for factors beyond their control.

The Free Will/Determinism debate endures as a fundamental philosophical inquiry, offering no definitive resolution. As individuals, we may lean towards one perspective or the other, but the complexity of the human psyche ensures that this debate will persist, challenging our understanding of choice, causation, and responsibility.