Category: Determinism

Determinism refers to the philosophical principle that all actions are pre-determined by a series of causal events and laws of nature. The theory pre-supposes that human decisions are a product of the conditioning of various factors.

This presents several challenges to the concept of free will or moral responsibility. It would appear that, if all human decisions are pre-determined and caused by various laws of nature, then there is nothing like free will. However, these seemingly contradictory concepts of determinism and free will continue to co-exist today.

One group of philosophers is convinced that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible (Pink, 2004). Another group believes that the two are inconsistent and thus, ought to not co-exist. The purpose of this paper is to show that determinism and moral responsibility co-exist and that human decisions or actions cannot contradict the pre-existing laws of nature.

Determinism is generally described by philosophers as the concept of every event having a cause. This causation applies the quantum physics laws of cause and effect (Williams, 1980). A popular kind of determinism is the social determinism.

It asserts that human behavior is influenced by, and is therefore a result of, social interactions and environment. Social determinism is one of three explanations for human behavior; the other two being free will and biological determinism.

Free will as an explanation for human behavior depicts that human beings consciously choose to act the way they do and are responsible for their actions, whether good or bad. Biological determinism school of thought claims that human behavior is a result of heredity and genetic makeup (Kattsoff, 1965).

In order to present how determinism and moral responsibility are compatible, it is essential to state several assumptions. The first assumption is that determinism is a materialistic worldview (Williams, 1980). This is especially in the respect to free will.

What this means is that human beings have no control over the actions of quantum physics both in the world around them or in their own brains. Secondly, moral responsibility in this case is based on the theory that the concept of goodness is an objective fact (Williams, 1980).

This means that goodness cannot be regarded as a product of language and is thus not subjective but is universal. In other words, the choice between what is moral or immoral is subject to an objective standard of good or bad which is outside the person making that choice.

The first example to illustrate the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism is the concept of punishment. This paper will show why it is not against the laws of logic to punish a person for their action while still holding on to the claim that we live in a deterministic world. First of all, punishment achieves two main goals.

The first goal is to prevent the person from repeating the action again while the second goal is to deter others from doing the same. This means that, even though the persons present actions were determined by the current state of affairs or laws of nature, the future actions of the same person under the same laws of nature will be different.

While one may argue that the punishment is a deterministic factor for the future behavior of the person being punished, the fact that the punishment acts as a deterrent to people other than the one being punished indicates a sense of moral responsibility in the unpunished people.

Secondly, a closer look at moral responsibility indicates that there exist compatibilities between moral responsibility and determinism. It is essential to appreciate the fact that the laws of nature do not necessarily cause actions such as human decision and other free-will choices (Honderich, 2005).

They do, however, influence how interactions between the mind and the physical world take place. The actual cause of human actions is the natural interactions that happen within their brain, as opposed to the world around them. The primary cause of one brain state is earlier brain states.

However, all these brain states are a result of previous inputs. Therefore, the moral or legal responsibility of a person making a decision is actually a resultant effect of the collective responsibilities of his teachers or the people that influenced him.

The person, however, bears the greatest responsibility because it is only at his point that the thoughts are translated into action (Honderich, 2005). This does not disprove human responsibility, it only points to the concept of shared responsibility, which is already a reality even in the present legal systems.

For example, while one person may actually be responsible for pulling the trigger, his accomplices also share in the responsibility and part of the punishment.

The above example clearly shows that human behavior is a complex subject. Social determinism would have people blame behavior on the environment one is exposed to, especially one they are brought up in and their social interactions (Honderich, 2005).

For instance, young people living in poverty areas are more likely to engage in crime compared to those living in the suburbs. Adults who have had humble and poor backgrounds are likely to turn out more ambitious and put more effort in their studies and talents compared to those who never lacked.

However, when it comes to social determinism, determinism is used to predict, rather than cause behavior. The evidence is not definitive proof. There are countless people who are brought up in ghettos and slums and still grow up to be responsible adults.

There are just as many brought up in slums who eventually engage in crime. Crime cannot be blamed on poverty exclusively or even partially, since poor people make up a very high percentage of the population (Pink, 2004).

Social interactions, especially during childhood, are responsible in large for attitudes, beliefs and values inherent in human beings. This is not to say that values and beliefs instilled during ones childhood are cast in stone. They often change as one matures, but not easily.

Parents, while raising their children, can instill in them values such as honesty, confidence, hard work, integrity and ambition through training and disciplining. On the other hand, they can also end up encouraging negative values such as laziness, low self-esteem and pessimism.

The environment also affects attitudes and values. For instance, a person living in a war zone or a hostile homestead is more likely to exhibit traits of melancholy or paranoia compared to a person living in a peaceful and happy environment (Widerker, 2006).

It has been proven that human beings are well aware of the difference between what is right and what is wrong. They also are not pre-conditioned to think and act in a certain way but have the capacity to learn and to improve. Their actions therefore, whether right or wrong, boil down to choice and free will.

Determinism can be viewed as influencers of behavior and choice, but not the causes. For instance, a positive environment is likely to contribute to an individuals moral decision not to hurt other people. A hostile and poor environment is likely to greatly influence an individuals decision to steal.

Therefore, biological determinism factors such as ones level of intelligence and temperaments and social determinism factors such as attitude, values and beliefs  though not causal factors of human behavior  are major influencers of choice (Widerker, 2006).

Among the reasons determinism cannot be used to explain away human behavior is its implication that human beings act based on uncontrollable environmental conditions and animal instincts inherent in them.

If human beings were preconditioned and could not control the effect their environment had on their character and individuality, then it would be pointless to punish and to advocate for moral responsibility. Determinism would have humanity question the aspect of decision making by implying that individuality is preconditioned (Widerker, 2006).

This also questions the causation theory which would make what one perceive as a cause not to be a real cause but a subjective effect of previous causes. The second reason determinism does not hold water, is the fact that there is no way of proving that human behavior in a particular environment would not be the same in a different environment.

It also does not explain why two individuals placed in the exact same environment with similar social conditions and interactions would have very different individualities and perceptions. If determinism was a valid explanation for human behavior then it would be expected that individuals with similar backgrounds would exhibit similar individualities.

Free will depicts that human beings are free to choose how to act regardless of their environment and socialization and are in control of their behavior. It however does not negate the possibility of being misled, coerced or brainwashed which would make it harder to make a rational choice based on will.

These conditions, however, do not necessarily mean that the individual is not in control of their actions (Honderich, 2002). Moral responsibility is acquired as an individual matures through disciplining, experience, teaching and learning.

It is almost an obligation especially in relation to acts carried out towards other people. Moral responsibility bases its principles on the fact that an individuals actions are not based on natural causes but on a brain process that the individual is responsible for, hence the concept of punishment.

Punishment, especially in regards to children is intended to instill morals, to make the child see the error of his ways and refrain from making the particular mistake again. Punishment in regards to adults is also intended to prevent the offender from repeating the particular mistake they are punished for as well as to dissuade other people from making that particular mistake.

Sometimes punishment is a form of attaining justice for the wronged party and to ensure the wrongdoer pays for his actions. If determinism was a reliable explanation for behavior, it would not make sense to punish people for wrong deeds or to praise or reward individuals for commendable actions.

The very fact that human beings feel the need to reward and appreciate good deeds and to condemn and punish wrong deeds means they are conscious about their actions and that they recognize that choosing to be morally responsible in spite of the worldly factors that would influence us to act otherwise is commendable.

In conclusion, human behavior and actions is a product of conscious choice and free will. These choices and their intensity, their moral standards and frequency may or may not be influenced by social and biological factors.

However a couple of other valid factors, such as lack of proper instruction by teachers and parents to their children, could cause tendencies of moral irresponsibility. Sometimes repetitive wrong choices and undisciplined behavior and morals could cause an individual to continually make wrong choices without conscience.

Even then, they would be making these decisions consciously aware that they are wrong and therefore would have to be held responsible for such actions. The extent to which determinism can be considered a cause of human behavior is yet to be established but the aspect of choice and free will whatever the circumstances is proven.

References

Honderich, T. (2002). How Free Are You?: The Determinism Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Honderich, T. (2005). On determinism and freedom. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kattsoff, L. O. (1965). Making moral decisions: An existential analysis. Hague: M. Nijhoff.

Pink, T. (2004). Free Will: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widerker, D. (2006). Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: essays on the importance of alternative possibilities. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

Williams, C. (1980). Free will and determinism: A dialogue. Indianapolis, In: Hackett Publishing.

The Argument from Determinism Against Free Will

Determinism is the argument that denies the freedom of will and choice. The key idea behind this notion is that everything thats happening now and that will happen in the future was already guaranteed to happen by things that happened in the distant past.

Namely, it states that events of the past and the laws of nature cause a unique future. In this paper, I intend to display the drawbacks of this argument. In the first section, I am going to present the argument and the reasoning and motivation behind it. Section 2 will be devoted to the criticism of a determinist point of view. In part 3, I will question my arguments and discuss the possible responses that may arise to my statements from section 2.

Determinism claims that all current and future conditions of the entire universe are physically necessitated by the states of the universe in the distant past. The events that determine our present activity might have happened before we were born, so we could not influence them.

In other words, there is only one possible course of action that the events can take, and humans cannot make choices that are not predetermined. Determinists believe that even when people feel that they are making choices, there is only one way how events can evolve. According to this point of view, people do what they do because of who they are, and they cannot influence their character.

The determinist argument against free will begins from the statement that determinism is true and concludes that if it is so, then not a single one of our actions is performed freely. Breaking up the determinist argument into logical elements, we have the following premises and conclusions:

• (D1) Determinism is true.
• (D2) If it is true, then all our actions are predetermined, and we cannot act otherwise.
• (D3) If we cannot choose another course of action, none of our actions is free.
• (D4) So, we are not free.

The premise D1 can be explained by the example of calculating how physical objects will move knowing the present situation and applying the laws of physics to it. According to D2, for any act a person has done, they could not have decided to do anything else. D3 comes from the assumption that for acting freely, we need to have alternatives to choose from. So, even if it seemed to you that there was a choice, you could not have chosen anything else because of who you are, and in this case, your actions are not free.

Criticism of Determinism

An objection to determinism as the argument against free will may focus on either D1, denying that determinism is true, or on D2 and D3, denying its connection to free will. In this section, I will argue against D1, focusing on its universalism. First of all, we should consider the randomness of the universe proved by the laws of physics. However, it will not be supportive of the objection as random events are neither determined nor free. The conclusion about the actions being caused by previous events and laws of nature is logical and undeniable. Nevertheless, I would argue against the universal applicability of determinism.

The motivation of the determinist argument is the example of the game of pool. Knowing the information about the positioning of balls, their weight, and the speed of the cue ball, we can calculate whether the ball it strikes will hit the pocket. However, this example does not account for the players decision on how to strike the ball. Determinism is true when concerning the physical world, but it cannot be applied to human mental actions. They are not subject to physical laws, neither they are random. The idea is that physical states of the universe& dont physically necessitate present and future nonphysical states of the universe.

Most of our decisions are indeed motivated by the events of the past that formed our character, but this fact cannot justify absolute determinism. There is no proof that determining events leave us with no choice at all. They limit the number of options, but it does not mean that they force us to have only one of them.

We often choose from several alternative possibilities, and our choice can sometimes be unpredictable and creative. The creativity that happens in our minds is another factor that rejects absolute determinism. This process is also influenced by inherited features, education, and the environment, but these factors do not justify the limitation of options to one. The human will can decide the course of action choosing from the variants provided by previous experience and determining events of the past.

A Response to Criticism

In the third section of my paper, I will focus on two possible objections that determinism defenders might use to respond to my arguments. The first response is about the actions our physical bodies perform, and the second is based on the factors that form our mentality. Determinists assume that our physical bodies are acting exclusively within the borders of the physical universe, so they are subject to physical laws.

The problem of this argument is that it does not include the mental decision behind these actions. Determinists prefer to look at the game of pool the moment after the ball was struck, and then they see only one possible course of action. If they had decided to look at the situation a couple of seconds earlier, they would see the player who would be considering several options. Each of his decisions would have a different effect on the balls trajectory. Thus, I conclude that our physical manifestation of actions depends on our mental decisions, which are free.

Another objection that determinists may raise is that our mental actions are also determined. Their belief implies that the traits of our character determine our decisions, and these features are formed by the number of factors over which we have no control. Namely, they rely on the impact of inhabited traits and the influence of environment and education. However, it is too bold to assume these factors as the only ones that contribute to personality development.

Psychologists have not proved the existence of the soul or other mental forces, but they claim that heredity and external factors are not the only ones. So, the decisions we take may have different contributing factors, such as inner creativity. In general, the defenders of determinism try to operate by the laws applicable to the physical world and transfer them to non-physical entities, and this is the moment where their argumentation fails.

Bibliography

Korman, Daniel Z. Learning from Arguments: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2019.

Determinism theory states that all actionstaken by human beings mainly depend on the events that have happened before, but not the free willof an individual.

In philosophical terms, the theory is built upon a metaphysical assumption that an event which has not been causedisnot likely to happen.This dogma is augmented by the ideas of effective scientific discoveries of several theorists. In some instances,particular behaviors are observed, and taking control seems to support this line of thinking.

The notion that anyaction taken byhuman beings is the outcome of perviouseventshas beenexpounded by both naturalists and theists. Naturalistsbelieve that human beings form part of the machines that drive the world.

In summary, the main idea is that because human beings are part of the universe, their actions originate from events that happened before, which were caused by earlier events, and the list is endless. Since, man is part of this chainof events; it goes without saying that man is part of the causal factors.

Therefore, based on determinism theory, I might not have had any other thoughts than these that I am now having, have had in the past, and will have even in future. Basically, this means that whatever position that I have taken on this debate, it was caused to take.

Thus, if determinism is true, no one could know it is true since all positions are determined. I strongly disagree with this belief. Just like Skinner who views that that every human behavior is entirely controlled by hereditary and ecological factors. The same applies to human actions that are determined by both environmental factors and genetic make-up of the individual.

Some people criticize the theory of determinism. This can be compared to the subject of how Americans view drug addiction.The Federal Bureau of Narcotics believes that narcotics addiction is an action that squarely depends on the police control. They suggest that crime levels have increased because of drug addiction.

The proponents of this school of thought claim that crimes perpetuated by drug addicts are directly linked to narcotics; they also argue that before becoming addicts,many addicts were gangs. On the other hand,others people criticize this belief, and contend that addiction is a disease, or anything similar to it.Therefore,punishing the addicts is not the best solution.

They claim that most addicts engage in criminal activities to get money to purchase the narcotics and not the opposite. For most of our history, drug addiction has been considered a weakness of the will, an inability to control ones desires. But now there is a growing consensus in the medical and treatment communities that addiction is a disease.

The relevance of determinism theory in this scenario is that it helps us to cement the belief that human actions or behavior have antecedent cause, an event having a previous cause and the events go up to infinitum.

On one hand causal Determinists contend that because of the laws of cause and effect, each and every event that occurs after a preceding event is determined. Thus, the decisions that human beings make are predetermined, hence there is no room to make a choice, or what they refer to as free will.

On the other hand, logical determinism believes that mans actions or involvement in events is not predetermined.The future is independent of the present or past events.

In short, we can say that once the logic or justification of some belief is understood, a rational person is bound to accept the belief. Since many of us have abandoned our childhood belief in Santa Clause, I cannot choose to actually believe in Santa again. In real sense it means that human beings make rational choices about their beliefs especially after truth dawning on them.

Introduction

On several occasions, philosophers have pointed out that libertarianism is fading away and the preferred account of free will has features which turn into proportionate amounts of considerable favor. According to Gomes, suspicion exists in libertarian accounts that explore unaffected movers and agent causations (Gomes 40-41).

As such, the philosophers have even propounded that the opposite of determinism is indeterminism and not freedom. Amidst such controversy, there is need to highlight the libertarian position and defend its concepts adequately, which is the gist of this paper. This paper also explores the concepts of determinism and combatibilism, and their strengths and weaknesses.

Concepts of Determinism and Combatibilism

Although research has shown that hard determinism is scarcely popular compared to libertarianism, several philosophers have pointed out the exact opposite (Gomes 40-41). This is because of aspects like fear of the philosophical consequences which may be implausible, though true (Gomes 40-41).

In this sense, metaphysicians have been unable to give compatibilist accounts satisfactorily, which might be a cause for worry. In addition, such a phenomenon can lead several people to believe that the determinist position is true (Chaffee 254-365; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

In the face of some philosophers, compatibilism and hard determinism concepts depict obvious differences. In this sense, compatibilists and hard determinists have shown considerable agreements. As a result, there has been a turn where the above issue has raised concern among cosmologists, but not for those philosophers of free will. According to Gomes, this is the end of the coincidence between determinism and compatibilism (Gomes 40-41).

The couple of theories above depict disagreement regarding the truthfulness of a crucial thesis, usually a thesis with compatibilist features. For instance, those (compatibilists) who endorse the thesis that determinism depicts compatibility with moral responsibility and free will and the thesis of determinism (compatibilist thesis) have also been shown to endorse the thesis of freedom. However, this endorsement by compatibilists has been rejected by hard determinists.

The hard determinists there by endorse the thesis that human actions (which are part of every event) have an origin/cause whose chain of causes leading to any given actions by an agent goes back in time to sometime before the agent was born (Gomes 40-42). This has been regarded as the determinist thesis. Therefore, the hard determinists endorse the determinist theses while on the other hand reject the compatibilist thesis. As a result, they are also forced to reject the freedom thesis that some human actions are true.

In this regard, the hard determinists have depicted the realizations that have flourishing habits of putting labels to acts (such as free and unfree), while granting and withholding moral responsibility ascriptions. However, they think that such ascriptions are unjustified (Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43; Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

According to philosophical explorations of hard determinism and compatibilism, hard determinism has been depicted as being a form of compatibilism. This is because the actions of a compatibilist can penalize or remunerate in an attempt to fit a certain criterion.

Similarly, the criterion has been depicted as not being sizable enough to fit into the definition of free action. Contrary to this, the criterion is instead de-feasible and licenses the de-feasible inference that if an action falls under this criterion, then, prima facie, the action is free (Randel 81).

In addition, hard determinists have been shown to punish or reward deeds (and misdeeds). The deeds and misdeeds they punish and reward depict the tendency to fall within this criterion. Therefore, hard determinists have been shown to endorse the thesis that some human actions are sanctionable (Sanctionable thesis).

In this regard, the hard determinists propound that sanctionable actions and free actions depict similarity in terms of extension (Gomes 40). This is to mean that they have the characteristic to pick out similar sets of actions (Vallentyne par. 3-11).

However, certain objections exist regarding the argument depicted above. Philosophers have pointed out that not only do the same actions regarded as free by the compatibilist point of view and sanctionable by the hard determinist (which puts the two theories at same and practical levels), but also that philosophers ought to have a translation of sanctionable actions as free actions (Chaffee 254-255).

Therefore according to the hard determinist point of view, some actions of human beings are free and sanctionable (Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43). Such hard determinists therefore end endorsing a thesis with compatibilist features and meanings.

Therefore, the sanctions thesis and the free thesis end as conjoined theses having the same meaning and about same things. In the above argument, hard determinism is literally and almost a form of compatibilism (Randel 81-99). In this regard, and basing on the assumption that libertarianism is false, the compatibilist approach (compatibilism) remains the only approach which literally accounts for free will and is the one that most philosophers endorse(Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

Whereas the compatibilist approach tends to depict an affirmative answer to the question are some actions free? (Gomes 40), the hard determinist approach tends to give an answer (in the affirmative) to the question are some actions sanctionable? (Gomes 43). As such the behavioral approaches of the hard determinists and the compatibilists will almost always tend to coincide. In line with the argument above, sanctionable events are perceived to be free acts or events (Randel 81-99).

If this is the case, then the hard determinist approach appears to be like the compatibilist approach. As such, the typical hard determinist approach depicts a denial of this phenomenon. Philosophers have therefore pointed out that such a blatant denial depicts insufficiency, and the hard determinist approach should be able to elucidate the salient features which differentiate their position with that of the combatibilists (Gomes 40).

Some philosophers have pointed out the possibility that the hard determinist approach may end as an atypical compatibilist, while giving in to the perception that less compatibilists would hold (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11; Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43). However, in line with the above argument, the particular views and perceptions which are held by determinists are not sufficient to push hard determinist approaches out of the cap of compatibilist approaches (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

An Argument for Libertarianism

While determinist approaches rely on the cause and effect of the cycle of events, the libertarian approach relies on somewhat random and non causal situation in which a person has the final choice over his/her actions.

Through certain aspects such as those of choice, it has been pointed out by the libertarian philosophers that they show value and responsibility in what they do (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11). Based on its ability to choose, the libertarian approach has been regarded as that which is morally responsible, unlike the determinist and compatibilist viewpoints which depict moral irresponsibility.

Vallentyne exemplifies the importance of aspects such as those of choice in libertarian approaches by strictly emphasizing on the aspect of choice (Vallentyne par. 3-10). According to Vallentyne, persons who focus on making their own choices depict higher and proper achievement of their potential.

Thus the making of a proper choice is the responsibility of a person who is adequately developed. According to libertarianism and its approaches, such people have a good life pattern because the choices that they make in life are their own choices (Vallentyne par. 3-11).

Other theistic libertarian philosophers have pointed out that if a person lacks free will, then God would be responsible for our sins (Vallentyne par 4). Contrary to the determinist point of view, libertarian persons have free will through the fact that will can in a sense turn in the direction that pleases it, &the will is naturally good; we love the good voluntarily and without constraint (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

Such a libertarian perception analyses the will and the concept of sin by pointing out that a persons will depicts a shift towards goodness but can at times be misled by those things which are apparent, those types that cause a person to err or sin. In this regard, a persons will is able to give or withhold consent. This argument is in line with the libertarian point of view, and it ultimately supports libertarianism (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11).

Libertarian philosophers have expressed dissatisfaction for cause and effect. In this regard, their points of view support the notion and perception of libertarianism that reality is present in uncaused events that are random.

This argument has been depicted as being strong for the libertarian approach as it explicitly gives an account of accidents which take place in life, in the natural sciences e.g. genetics, in novelty and in creativity (Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43). This argument strengthens the libertarian approach unlike the determinist approach which gives a minimal and improper account of happenings and events which depict non predictability (Gomes 40-43).

On the other hand, some philosophers have pointed out that libertarianisms ideology and system of thought is imperfect, considering the many gaps which it leaves unfilled. Such gaps include inability to give vivid accounts of scientific patterns and sequences. In addition, the libertarian point of view rarely admits that experiences and events of the past can increase the probability of future events, than any other events (Gomes 40-43).

For instance, a person may either have a choice to stand by the side-walk or continue to walk on the path of a vehicle. In the libertarian perspective, such a pedestrian has a choice to choose one thing from the other while the determinist and the compatibilist views would be that past events would determine a persons choice of walking in the path of a moving vehicle (Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43).

Conclusion

Though the libertarian approach may have gaps in terms of the logic of events, its ideological system has features which are unique, compelling, interesting and logically sound, unlike determinism and compatibilism. Within the bounds of the libertarian approach, persons depict willingness to make personal choices, independent of controls by a foreign entity.

In this regard, the concepts of free will not only support responsibility (morally and socially) but the libertarian point of view and its confines exist in coherence with human creativity, accidents and religion (Randel 81-99; Vallentyne par. 3-11; Chaffee 254-365; Gomes 40-43).

Works Cited

Chaffee, John. The Philosophers Way: Thinking Critically about Profound Ideas, Pearson Publishers: Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.

Gomes, George. What should we Retain from a Plain Persons Concept of Free Will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12.1(2005): 40-43. Print.

Randel, Koons. Is Hard Determinism A Form Of Compatibilism? The Philosophical Forum, 33.1(2007): 81-99. Print.

Vallentyne, Peter. Libertarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2010. Web.

Introduction

Philosophy of freedom has been explored extensively in the past. Consequently, theorists have come up with different philosophical ideas to explain the occurrence of events. Additionally, theorists have tried to explain human actions and desires. Determinism is usually compared to casualty. On the other hand, compatibilism is commonly weighed against free will. Additionally, libertarianism is often judged against privileges. This paper will try to define determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. Furthermore, the paper will compare and contrast the mentioned philosophical positions. Moreover, it will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the positions. Consequently, the paper will decide on the best position (Bratman 14).

Determinism

Determinism refers to the philosophical thinking that antecedent events determine human actions and decisions, as well as human affairs. Determinism is different from determination or pre-determinism. Deterministic events have been found to arise from overlapping or diverse considerations and motives. At times determinism refers to causality. In this regard, it refers to a cause-and-effect phenomenon, a philosophy in physics. The cause-and-effect phenomenon states that events within a specified pattern are guarded by causality, such that any occurrence is influenced by prior situations. In essence, determinism argues that preceding incidences, which may extend back to the creation of the cosmos, have an unbroken chain that links the events (Zimmerman 221).

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is sometimes known as soft determinism. Essentially, compatibilists argue that determinism is right. Additionally, the position implies that every incident is caused. Moreover, it shows that the concept of free will exists. In general, compatibilists argue that events can be both free and caused. Influential philosophers like Daniel Dennett, among others, have advocated for compatibilism. According to Hobbes, individuals voluntary deeds are usually the same. However, their peoples actions transpire due to a chain of past events, which can be traced back to the creation of the space. In essence, freedom comes from ones free will, while limitations are compelled.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism refers to a state of free will. This philosophical thought comes from the word liberty, which is also known as autonomy or sovereignty. Libertarians suggest that people should be left to decide their own fate in whatever they undertake. In essence, libertarianism posits that individuals ought to be allowed to move with their lives as they desire. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that tries to affirm ones right to liberty. Libertarianism also works to protect an individuals right to holdings. Essentially, this philosophical thought emphasizes the basics of moral principles. Libertarians also emphasize toleration, justice, and prosperity among individuals. Furthermore, libertarianism works to encourage responsibility, peace, and co-operation.

Similarities

Compatibilism is closely linked to causal determinism in that it agrees with the fact that past events affect future events. The difference only exists when compatibilism posits that people also act as free agents, who are morally responsible. In essence, compatibilism can also be considered as a soft determinism. In essence, for proponents of compatibilism, the fact that human actions are coerced by previous events does not nullify the idea that individuals have choices. In general, deterministic theories postulate that every event must have a cause, which is also similar to compatibility belief that determinism is true (SEP 1).

Differences

While determinism implies that past events define future events (if the laws of nature are fixed), libertarianism implies that past events do not necessarily define future events (even if laws of nature remain constant). This happens because libertarianism holds that peoples decisions or actions come from a free will, and the decisions are not controlled by past events. On the other hand, peoples decisions or actions are coerced by past events indeterminism. It is also necessary to note that incompatibilism, there is a probability of past events affecting future events, although this can also be influenced by the free will.

Compatibilism cannot be assumed as a compromise between determinism and libertarianism. It should be noted that determinism rebuffs the notion of free will. On the other hand, libertarianism posits that people have free will. Additionally, libertarianism rebuffs compatibilism, since it does not advocate for determinism, which is also entailed incompatibilism. This philosophical thought is sometimes called soft determinism, since it agrees with determinism, although it adds that people also act freely. However, it should be noted that compatibilism does not combine with deterministic or libertarian positions. In essence, compatibilism is closely linked to determinism since the latter reinforces the former; however, compatibilism is not closely linked to libertarianism (Arpaly 25).

Strengths

Libertarianism has an advantage in that it enables people to become morally responsible for their actions since they have the free will to decide on their activities. Libertarianism brings about a competitive system, which depends on the choices made by individuals in a society. Moreover, liberty provides freedom and rights for people in a society. Furthermore, libertarianism protects people from the unwarranted force from the government.

Determinism aids people in appreciating the law of nature. Additionally, determinism assists people to understand their environment. Furthermore, determinism eases ones ability to promote and appreciate the gift of life. Determinism also encourages people to respect each other. In essence, determinism teaches people not to envy, or not to despise, among others. In general, determinism emphasizes the need to appreciate the natural world and fortune.

Compatibilism frees people from arcane scientific theories. In essence, people are not locked to determinism only but also to the fact that people have a free will. Compatibilism attributes moral responsibility in people irrespective of their knowledge of determinism. Compatibilism tries to explain human actions even when past events are not taken into consideration. Additionally, compatibilism tries to explain occurrences, which are complex with determinism.

Weaknesses

Based on the belief of libertarians, it is within ones power to believe or not. However, it should be noted that there are reasons that make people decide on a particular issue and not on another. For instance, Christians think that they cannot believe the gospel wholly without the help of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, a man does not have a free will as pointed above, there has to be someone or something influencing his/her actions. Additionally, libertarians affirmations of a causeless choice are quite weak, since everything seems to happen with a reason. For instance, one decides to eat when he/she is hungry. Additionally, one can run to the office when he/she is late.

Although determinism encourages appreciation of nature, it also promotes irresponsible behavior. For instance, criminal acts caused by previous events in ones life can be blamed on such causalities. In this regard, the individual cannot be blamed. This makes the individual irresponsible. Additionally, determinism can undermine the justification for penalties.

Compatibilism presents a complex situation in explaining causal determinism and free will. For instance, determinism posits that ones choices are determined by past events (when laws of nature remain unchanged). From this argument, when one chooses something different, then the laws of nature must change. In this regard, determinism is incompatible with the free will. It, therefore, becomes difficult for the two to be utilized by an individual.

The position is chosen: Libertarianism

Based on the arguments above, it is clear that determinism is logical. However, libertarianism appeals since it give liberty to people such that they work within their free will. When the concept of physical is taken into account, the laws of the universe are followed in principle. However, it is interesting to note that some laws of the universe have been defined in religious terms; for instance, Jesus walked on water. In this regard, it is only possible to choose libertarianism as the best option since it gives people the opportunity to explore their choices irrespective of past events. Libertarianism offers people an opportunity to be responsible for their behaviors. Additionally, libertarianism enables people to come up with a competitive society, in which people exercise their roles according to their ability and will (Chaffee 44).

Conclusion

A number of philosophical ideas have sprung up over the past. These include compatibilism, determinism, and libertarianism, among others. However, the three named philosophical positions have raised several debates around the world. Determinism posits that each incident must have a cause. On the other hand, libertarianism posits that people have the free will to do whatever they want whenever they wish. Additionally, compatibilism posits that determinism is true, although people have choices. Based on the strengths and weakness of the philosophical positions, libertarianism presents the best offer for freedom, as well as a moral responsibility.

Works Cited

Arpaly, Nomy. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Bratman, Michael. Structures of Agency, New York: Oxford, 2007.

Chaffee, John. The Philosophers Way: A Text with Readings: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas (4^th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson education, 2013.

SEP. Compatibilism. 2009. Web.

Zimmerman, David. Reasons-Responsiveness and the Ownership of Agency: Fischer and Ravizzas Historicist Theory of Responsibility, Journal of Ethics, 6.1 (2006): 199234.

The debate that surrounds the causes and effects of technological progress can generally be separated into two distinct sides: technological determinists and social constructivists. The former claim that new inventions, especially influential ones, lead to social changes and ultimately cause humanitys progress. For example, the Industrial Revolution dramatically increased productivity and reduced the need for human labor, eliminating the need for serfs and bringing about the end of feudalism.

By contrast, the latter supports the idea that emerging social changes make it more likely for a new invention to appear because people are interested in the problem that it would solve. People began looking for cheaper alternatives to hard labor, and the combination of many different inventions eventually led to the phenomenon known as the Industrial Revolution. Both positions have valid arguments, and this paper will discuss the primary differences between their paradigms as they are applied to the media.

The first point of the technological determinists can be expressed in Marshall McLuhans phrase, the medium is the message. It is the claim that the content that is being transmitted using the media matters less than the medium itself (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2015). Each variety of platforms is associated with some specific factors that ultimately determine the nature of the works that appear on it and the reaction of the user.

McLuhan uses the example of print in his lecture available from mywebcowtube (2011a), noting that the effect of any printed work is negligible when compared to that of the invention of the printer. New varieties of media emerge and change society by enabling new possibilities. In this context, the specific ideas that are being expressed are easily replaceable because they ultimately reinforce the overarching paradigm regardless of their content.

The counterpoint from the social constructivist side would be that new media are invented to accommodate new types of a message as they become necessary. Wallace (2016) provides the example of radio, which was the result of a combination of the efforts of numerous engineers, most of whom are relatively unknown compared to Guglielmo Marconi. From a social constructivist standpoint, the radio was invented because humanity began increasingly needing a means of instant communication. As a result, more and more people would put their efforts into the creation of wireless communication until, eventually, one of them succeeded.

The same reasoning can be applied to many other technologies, though the relationship will not always be readily apparent. Effectively, the emergence of new types of content drives the creation of specialized media, hence the difference in their material and effects.

The second difference is in how technological determinists view the effects of media. Their opinion that progress drives social change effectively means that media has the power to shape society. As such, McLuhan expresses the idea that by understanding the media, people would be able to program the whole environment to achieve a specific purpose, which is the prevention of illiteracy in his case (mywebcowtube, 2011b).

However, the knowledge could also be used for other purposes, effectively manipulating society to the wishes of those who control the media. McLuhan provides an example of how, due to the media, the image of a politician has become more important than the policies they support (mywebcowtube, 2011c). The prevention of such ill-intentioned manipulation creates a dilemma, as anyone who understands media well enough to oversee it will also be able to control it to their advantage.

Social constructivists tend to disagree and claim that the media reflects the view of society. As a result, attempts at manipulating them will be mostly ineffective, as people will lose interest in media that goes against social norms, both normal and emerging ones. President Trump, who won the election despite continuous negative coverage by a large portion of various media and popularized the term fake news, can serve as an example. He was able to recognize the growing frustration of a significant part of the electorate with the traditional media and see the potential of a social media presence. As a result, he was able to secure a dedicated voter base that would be reinforced and expanded by media attempts to decrease his popularity, eventually winning the presidency with a small, self-funded campaign.

With that said, Donald Trumps victory can also be attributed to the power of the new medium that is social media. Overall, most social phenomena can be partially explained by combining technological determinism and social constructivism to identify the chain of cause and effect. As such, it is generally prudent to view both theories together, with society driving advances in technology, which, in turn, produces unexpected changes in the population.

New media phenomena, such as the Internet, have changed the social discourse. However, despite a relative lack of new creations after the emergence of social media, the discourse has shifted several times after their introduction. As such, both society and technology contribute to new trends, and each should be considered when one is trying to analyze the influence of various media.

References

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9^th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

mywebcowtube. (2011a). Marshall Mcluhan full lecture: The medium is the message  1977 part 1 v 3 [Video]. YouTube. Web.

mywebcowtube. (2011b). Marshall Mcluhan full lecture: The medium is the message  1977 part 2 v 3 [Video]. YouTube. Web.

mywebcowtube. (2011c). Marshall Mcluhan full lecture: The medium is the message  1977 part 3 v 3[Video]. YouTube. Web.

Wallace, P. (2016). The psychology of the Internet (2^nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

McLuhans Technological Determinism

• McLuhan argued that media dictates social change.
• He introduced The medium is the message.
• McLuhan focused on medium rather than content.
• A Medium is an extension of humans.
• Every medium encourages different habits in society.
• Electronic media has retribalized the human face.
• Digital technology influences the way humans interact.
• Media technologies increases peoples control over time.
• Dominant media alters the social lifes rhythm.
• Electronic media have facilitated social boundaries transcension.
• These technologies alter peoples sense of space.
• They also alter peoples sense of community.
• Wireless technologies have led to network societies.
• Electronic media has introduced online communication culture.

According to Marshall McLuhan, technological determinism is the view that media technologies determine processes of social change. It includes books, newspapers, telephone, social networking sites, email, or websites (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018).

Based on his aphorism The medium is the message, McLuhan debunks the notion that media is a mere channel delivering messages.

Unlike media content, that the medium has the capability to reform human experience and exert more societal changes than total number of messages they carry (Giotta, 2017).

Unlike in the past where broadcast media required a live audience, nowadays people can download or save content for later viewing, enabling people to have more control over time (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018).

The introduction of cable news channel that air news throughout the day has broken previous monotony of waiting for news updates at specific times of the day, altering social lifes rhythm.

Media technologies have also surpassed social boundaries as minors are now exposed to adult content (Giotta, 2017).

Social Forces

• Critics argue that social forces determine technologies.
• They focus on people rather than medium.
• Human agency dictates usage of media technologies.
• Social dynamics can alter future technological development.
• Media technologies are products of human invention.
• Electronic communications resemble bodily resourced communicative modes.
• Economic pressures greatly influence new media application.
• McLuhans critics argue that media technologies are dictated by social forces such as human agency, economic pressures, cultural norms, and legal and policy regulations (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018).
• These technologies are seen as products of humans invention and they imitate bodily communicative modes such as gestural, visual, linguistic and spatial abilities.
• Economic pressures have been considered to be the major social forces behind technological forces as major media firms seek ways to generate revenue from the opportunities brought by these platforms.

McLuhans critics argue that media technologies are dictated by social forces such as human agency, economic pressures, cultural norms, and legal and policy regulations (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018).

These technologies are seen as products of humans invention and they imitate bodily communicative modes such as gestural, visual, linguistic and spatial abilities.

Economic pressures have been considered to be the major social forces behind technological forces as major media firms seek ways to generate revenue from the opportunities brought by these platforms.

Media technologies such as Netflix, Twitter, and Instagram have offered platforms where marketers and businesses can promote their brands, changing these sites to advertising hubs.

Legal systems are gradually imposing restrictions on social media usage through government regulations. However, Big Tech industry remains largely unregulated.

Cultural norms limit online activities, especially for children through parental mediation strategies such as time restriction and use of shared computers to reduce time spent on internet and alleviate their exposure to explicit content (Shin, 2013).

What Stands Out While Juxtaposing McLuhans Technological Determinism and Social Forces?

• New technologies changes society at every level.
• Social phenomena can be shaped by technology.
• Media companies generate their revenue from advertisements.
• Users preferences influence evolution of these technologies.
• Importance of media technologies cannot be overemphasized.
• Significance of social forces cannot be underrated.
• New media is interrelated with social forces.

Juxtaposition between McLuhans technological determinism and social forces presents numerous outstanding themes. For instance, technologies can change society at every level including science, politics, entertainment, education and health (Giotta, 2017).

While media technologies such as TV and social networking sites may be viewed as mere platforms for communication, they mainly depend on advertisements to gain revenues for their sustainability.

New media such as online stream are interconnected with social forces as they are developed to meet consumers changing needs (Shin, 2013).

One Difference Between McLuhans Technological Determinism and Social Forces

• Despite the social determinists argument that technology is an effect of sociocultural change, McLuhan fails to acknowledge that humans determine its success or failure (Giotta, 2017).
• McLuhan argues that media technologies can change human behaviors independent of social forces, which is widely disputed by his critics who believe that these two areas are mutually dependent.

Technological determinism does not consider human agency while social forces acknowledge inherent capacities of various media. While McLuhan views technology as the principal mover of social changes, his critics agree that these platforms have had substantial contributions to society (Giotta, 2017). For instance, their ability to connect people worldwide and act as sources of vast and knowledgeable information (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018). This difference indicates that technological determinism completely ignores the significance of human factors.

One Similarity Between McLuhans Technological Determinism and Social Forces

• Social forces and McLuhans technological determinism have also contributed to social media addiction as people increasing become over reliant on the internet.
• Both have facilitated the growth of international trade and are also designed to alter peoples behaviors (Giotta, 2017).

Technological determinism and social forces are crucial agents of sociocultural change. For instance, media technologies have created a culture where online communication has become primary, especially for younger generation. Similarly, social forces have altered peoples perspective of technology. For instance, business enterprises have embraced it as a perfect platform for marketing their products and services. Moreover, the two have contributed to changes in business operations where the need to shift to online shopping has led to the emergence of such platforms as Amazon and Alibaba.

Personal Position/Perspective Of Mcluhans Technological Determinism and Social Forces

• Technological determinism and social forces are inter-dependent.
• The two lead to significant sociocultural changes.
• Effects of both to society are inevitable.
• Social forces are superior to technological determinism.
• Technological determinism supports usage of media technologies.
• Social forces can discourage new technologys adoption.
• Technological determinism should not ignore social forces.

Based on my perspective/position of technological determinism and social forces, I believe that the two are inter-dependent. This association means that they media technologies cannot exists in the absence of such human factors as economic factors and changing cultural norms. Similarly, social forces depend media technologies due to their inherent capacities to numerous solutions to users.

Technological determinism is inferior to social forces due to the fact that some factors such as government regulation can completely bar usage of media technologies.

References

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2018). Media/Society: Technology, industries, content, and users. SAGE Publications.

Giotta, G. (2017). Teaching technological determinism and social construction of technology using everyday objects. Communication Teacher, 32(3), 136140. Web.

Shin, W. (2013). Parental socialization of childrens Internet use: A qualitative approach. New Media & Society, 17(5), 649665. Web.

Throughout history, free will and determinism have been a longstanding debate. The question arises because, as in many other issues in philosophy, two of our basic beliefs about ourselves and the world seem to conflict. While some believe that we do choose our own paths and have free will to choose, others believe our lives are chosen for us based on past events, or determinism. In this essay, I intend to argue that humans are free and have complete control over their lives. Also, that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism, or the view of Libertarianism.

Free will is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “1. Voluntary choice or decision; 2. Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or divine intervention.” (“Free Will.” Merriam-Webster). In other words, individuals have the ability to make some decisions independent of their brain structure, genetics, and experiences. While determinism is defined as “A theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws.” (“Determinism.” Merriam-Webster). This implies we are not free to choose. Our choices are actually caused by historical events, including the makeup of our brains. We are not really free to engage in acts other than the ones we actually undertake.

Today, there are various philosophical views about the relationship between determinism and free will. The three main philosophical views are; determinists, libertarians and compatibilists. Those who believe that free will does not exist and that much of what happens to us is outside of our control are known as determinists. The opposing view, or libertarians, claims that determinism is false and therefore that free will is possible. Lastly, those who believe determinism and free will are compatible and can both be true are known as compatibilists.

My perspective is similar to those with libertarian views. I argue that humans do have free will and complete control of their actions. We are fully responsible for the decisions we make and the actions we take. However, external and internal factors, subconsciously and ones we are not consciously aware, may influence our decisions, including one’s own desires. For example, the sin by Adam and Eve that occurred in their ‘willfully chosen’ disobedience to God. Adam and Eve exercised their right to free will when they decided to eat the fruit from the tree and disobey God’s wishes. The serpent, or Satan, spoke to Eve; convincing her that she can eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. The serpent argued that the fruit from the tree was good for food and desirable for gaining wisdom. Against God’s wishes, they ate the fruit. They both exercised their free will and made the decision to eat the fruit after God told them not to. In addition to eating the fruit against God’s wishes, Adam and Eve decide to cover themselves after realizing their nakedness. Adam and Eve feel shame, and they choose to hide from God when he is in the garden. In both situations, Adam and Eve acted on their own desires and decided not to listen to God anymore. In the end, Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, knowing they would be driven from God’s presence for doing so. Then they chose to obey the commandments and tried to teach their children about the Gospel so they could be happy in this life and exited in the afterlife.

I argue that each person is the owner of his or her own life, and each is free to make decisions about his or her own life. Consider a woman who is contemplating whether or not to have an abortion. She may tell herself it’s the right decision considering she was raped and doesn’t want to raise the rapist’s child or she isn’t ready to be a mom. Although she knows it’s morally wrong, it’s overall the best decision for her. Thus, free will allows us to make a decision and have free action. According to Aristotle, humans are responsible for the actions they freely choose to do. He believed that humans have free will because they are free to choose their actions within the confines of their natures. In other words, humans are free to choose between the alternatives presented to them by their dispositions. In addition, humans have the special ability to mold their dispositions and to develop their moral characters. We have freedom in two senses: we can choose between the alternatives that result from our dispositions, and they can change or develop the dispositions that present them with these alternatives (“Aristotle”).

Also, free will seems to be required for moral responsibility. If one does not have free will, then one is not morally responsible for her actions. For example, if someone is coerced into doing a morally bad act, we shouldn’t hold them morally responsible for this action since it is not an action that they did of there own free will. In the text “The Objects of Moral Responsibility” by Khoury, it states “Whenever we act there is an associated mental event, what I have called a willing, and, in the context of action, it is only willings for which moral agents are responsible ”. Khoury uses an example of a man moving his finger which flips a light switch, and in which alerts a prowler. He states “The effects of this bodily movement can be captured in the description of the action, but there is just a single action that takes place. His moving of his finger can be described as his flipping of the light switch which can be described as his alerting of the prowler, but each of these descriptions denotes a single event: his moving of his finger = his flipping of the switch = his alerting of the prowler”. If one was coerced or forced to do something, they should not be morally responsible considering they were forced to do so. They could only be held morally responsible if the action was voluntary.

Although, in some cases, some of our actions can be caused by prior events. There are specific situations in which what happens to us is out of our control. Under certain conditions, an event will cause an outcome. For example, while you’re driving down the road, and a person in a car coming toward you is texting on a cell phone. The driver doesn’t see you, and you swerve to miss the car but hit another car. The cause of the accident was not that you swerved but that another driver was on a cell phone while driving. The effect was hitting another car but avoiding hitting the other driver. The actions of the distracted driver were predetermined.

According to Thomas Hobbes, “man was as free as an unimpeded river. A river that flows down a hill necessarily follows a channel, but it is also at liberty to flow within the channel. The voluntary actions of people are similar. They are free because their actions follow from their will; but the actions are also necessary because they spring from chains of causes and effects which could in principle be traced back to the first mover of the universe, generally called God” (“Compatibilism.” Philosophy Now: a Magazine of Ideas). I somewhat agree with this view. In some cases, humans follow a path that is determined by things that have occurred and they can’t help it. There are sufficient and necessary reasons to cause it to happen – and it could not happen any other way because if it did, the reasons were neither sufficient nor necessary. Something else would have happened in line with the reasons that were actually sufficient and necessary. Such as a specific gene or disease that runs through your family bloodline and you are diagnosed, it was destined to happen because of those previous events.

In conclusion, this debate has been an issue because it represents a collision between two opposing, yet equally valid, perspectives. Although many argue that we have no free will or control of our lives, I say otherwise. Certain circumstances may result from prior events but overall, humans have complete control of their decision making.

There are certain things in life is more valuable to us than the freedom. Free will is the problem of modality and we want this one, we cannot live without it. On one hand we think that we have free will and on other hand we think that every event has a cause. The problems of free will is the challenge of determinism of our ideas about personal freedom. Human beings have choice to made own decision and they are responsible for what they do. Free will is idea that we have choice to choose our dreams and our work even we are self-determined. There are three solutions for free will problems like hard determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism. There is a problem of free will is that is depending on the elemental causes and effects.

The view of the hard determinism is that no one can free will. Hard determinism is the view that free will does not exist no one can act freely. Hard determinism accepts three proposition (1) determinism is true means that we denied the free will (2) determinism and free will are incompatible means that free will is possible but only in the in deterministic world (3) we never act freely. Determinism is depending on the laws. For example, Student x is preparing for exam and he is really try hard to pass on the exam but some reason he was fail on the exam. Student knew that if he is not study than he is failed but his failure is already determined. So, if determinism is true than everything in the word happened it has to be happen. According to d’Holbach science has proof that every event is determined by events and laws. According to William James free choice is not decided by the previous event. There is more than one way to determine your choice and it is depending on how you choose your choice it is matter of chance but if choice comes about by chance than it will follow by the previous event.

Incompatibilism is that if determinism is true than no one can free. Compatibilism is that if determinism is true than we can act freely. Compatibilism is believing that determinism is true and free will are compatible. In hard determinism that universe is operate with laws and regulation while compatibilism thinks about some of the human action which we take are free. Compatibilism is also known as soft determinism. For example, someone pushed off in diving board rather than jumping in both cases you are in water but in case one someone pushed off from the diving board and in case two you are jumping by yourself both action is determined but the action which is determined by them self which is considered as free. In compatibilism you are free to do something different than what you actually did it. No one can have prevented from doing it.

Libertarianism is the view that some actions are free if it is controlled by person. Libertarianism believe that determinism is not true and determinism and free will are incompatible. Libertarianism believes that we are free to choose our action and we are responsible for our actions. Hume defines this power of action which means that if we forced to act something than it is not considered as a free will. If our actions are coming from ourselves and is only decided by yourself than is considered as free. Libertarianism is believing in experience and feelings. Sometimes we have mixed feelings we decided toc choose one than we regret if I decided to choose another we still have opportunity to choose based on our feelings. Libertarians says that when we have make the choice we have multiple options to choose one of them that means that we have options to choose and what we finally choose do it.

Some of the people in world they think “are we free?” some say yea because everyone can do anything’s they want also every one fill free also everyone can make decision about each and every topic base on their knowledge means believes and hope. The action of people think they are fee that called libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the part of the political libertarianism. They both different. Most of people in world they think action are free. But some case people not agree with other believes and hope, also some of the belief that all event is caused by past event such that “nothing other than what does occur could occur”. Libertarianism is people own thought and that not include any type of physical part. If someone planning to drink cock their own thought tells them do that they decide for that event so, they drink that call libertarianism.

Some case libertarianism is not possible without determinism. Like aircraft fly in sky. That is call libertarianism because the aircraft own thought. But without pilot really is possible? Not write now. May be in future. So, based on right now the aircraft fly in sky is example of the determinism. So that means physical world itself deterministic. Better way to say physical event happen because the previous physical event happens. Also pilot plan to drive to do aircraft so this happen. So, that also libertarianism. So argument about this topic is hard. because correct both way. So, best way to say just feels an awful free.

Some people think fill so free for himself may be possibility they are free. But they need to come up with unique idea that can make them to prove they really fee in his life. Without the unique idea they may be not be free. Base on the French philosopher baron D’ Holbach none of the people action is free. Free action is impossible. philosopher baron D’ Holbach think people fill free only because they ignore the force around them. Also, everything is the inevitable result of the what came before. That means human and their action is the part of the physical world and base on the physical laws that make them to do it. So, Physical world is deterministic. Also base on philosopher William James thought “first act of freewill shall be to believe in free will”. Some just don’t know what is the “free will” meaning and arguing about free will.

The problem of free will is challenging for everyone to determine our ideas and feelings about personal freedom. Freedom is based on the situation. The main idea of free will is depending on the determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. Hard determinism is the view that no one can act freely. Quantum physics gives an example to the notion of every event has a cause. Compatibilism state that determinism is true and our action can still free. Libertarianism says that some actions are free which is controlled by the person or agents. For many people free will is matter because is depending on the crucial role, punishment, praise and blame and responsibility. We think that we are free because we ignore the forces which bind us. So, Free actions are possible and free will is an illusion.

Work cited

1. Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now. Second ed., Oxford University Press, 2016.
2. Richard Taylor, Metaphysics, forth ed., Contains a very straightforward defense of libertarianism

Ways of Thinking

What is a philosophy and why is it important? Philosophy is a way that can get people to think and ask questions about things. Many philosophers have come up with their own beliefs and ideas. What makes philosophy interesting and great is that anyone can participate in it and that everyday people will use it without even realizing it. Philosophy can be an interesting subject because it is around people asking questions and forming their own ideas which can lead to people either agreeing or disagreeing with it. For example, the words determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism all mean different things and are something that people will have to think about and decide for themselves which they believe is the right one. With these words, there is no right or wrong answer because it is just a matter of opinion and what they believe to be the right choice. After doing some research on all three of them, I believe that libertarianism is the right choice because people have the ability to make their own choices and can have the ability to try and change them.

Determinism is “The view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion.” [Ref:1] Determinism can be important because every event that has happened in the past has had an impact on today’s world. John Chaffe who is an author state “Human nature: People are born with certain basic instincts that influence and determine how they behave.” [Ref:2] The choices that we have made in the past and what we make now can have an impact on us and in the future. A strength of determinism can be the actions that have either been made or are being made because those actions are what have either gotten us here today or where they will take us in the future. [1: John Chaffee, The Philosopher’s Way, New Jersey: Pearson, 2015, p. 159. ] [2: Ibid. p. 159.]

Determinism can have its strengths like the actions that we make but at the same time, it also has some weaknesses. With determinism, everything that has happened in the past has shaped today’s world and there is nothing we can do about it. Bernard Berofsky, who is an author, states “No human behavior is free.” [Ref:3] With determinism things like free will is questioned and some might think that it is not real. “Some people believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control.” [Ref:4] A weakness of determinism can be things like the questions of our free will and that some of the choices that we make can already be determined by things that we couldn’t stop. [3: Bernard Berofsky, Determinism, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 4.] [4: Ibid. p. 159.]

Compatibilism is “The view that all events, including human actions, are caused. However, we can consider human actions free if they are the result of internal motivations, not the product of external influences or constraints.” [Ref:5] Unlike Determinism where free will might be questioned, with Compatibilism free will is a thing. Free will is important because it can give a person the right and ability to decide and make their own choices. With Compatibilism their strength would be that they do at least acknowledge something like free will. [5: Ibid. p. 160.]

A weakness for compatibilism would be that “They agree with hard determinists that all events, including human actions, are caused.” [Ref:6] Just like determinism, compatibilism has the idea that the events of the past are what make the current world. The idea of having people’s actions already being determined from the past can definitely be argued. Learning about past events can be important because people can learn from them so that they can try to avoid those mistakes if need be but having those past events already determine what we might do is not necessarily true. People can have the ability to make their own choices and decisions and so with compatibilism, having the idea that the events of the past already determine what we might do, I think is a weakness to it. [6: Ibid. p. 160.]

Libertarianism is “The view that humans are able to make authentically free choices that are not determined by previous events in accordance with universal laws.” [Ref:7] Unlike determinism, and compatibilism, libertarianism is different. With libertarianism, it is the idea that people have free will and that their actions are not caused by events. “Libertarianism holds that we should each be permitted to choose how our lives will go, so long as we do not violate other’s rights.” [Ref:8] Libertarianism allows for people to do what they want and to be able to make their own choices without the worry that other things might have caused their actions. [7: Ibid. p. 161.] [8: Jason Brennan, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 1. ]

While libertarianism does believe in free will, a weakness to it would be the fact that people can make their own choices. If people can make their own choices, then they would be able to do things like robbing a bank or stealing a candy bar or just do whatever they wanted to do. The things that people do can have an effect on other people. Aaron Powell who is an author state “Libertarianism without philosophy is libertarianism without foundation. Without principle. It’s not enough to have reasons for one’s political views.” [Ref:9] Lots of different people have their own opinions and views about things and having free will can give them the ability to do things like this. [9: Aaron R. Powell, Argument for Liberty, Washington D.C., Libertarianism.org Press, 2017, p. 2.]

The thing that makes determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism all similar would be that all of them have to deal with free will. Determinism does not really like the idea of free will, compatibilism acknowledges the idea of free will, and libertarianism accepts the idea of free will. Free will is an important thing for people. For over four and a half billion years humans have continued to make their own choices and have their own opinions which could have an effect on other people. Lots of people have had their own opinions about free will and being in one of the categories like determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism can go to show what they think about free will.

The thing that separates these three would be the ideas that they have. Determinism thinks that the choices that were made in the past determine our present-day and that some of the choices and actions that we make have already been determined and we cannot do anything about it. Compatibilism believes a lot of what determinism believes but the only difference between the two is that compatibilism acknowledges free will while determinism does not really care for it. Libertarianism is the opposite of determinism and believes in free will and that people’s choices are not determined by past events but instead are determined by just the choices that they make. All three of these have different viewpoints on things and people have the ability to decide what they want to believe in and so there would be no right or wrong answer if they were to decide which one they believed in.

Out of the three, I think that libertarianism is the right choice. I believe that everyone has the free will to make their own choices and do their own things. I do not believe that the events of the past have determined who we are today or will be in the future. Even though the things that people will do sometimes might have an impact on others, it is their right to make their own choices and have their own opinions. Having a free will can either be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the person and what they plan to do.

Determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism are three different ways of beliefs and thinking in philosophy. All of them have their own opinions and beliefs about different things like free will. If people were to choose which they believe to be the right one, there would be no right or wrong answer because it is more of a personal opinion and choice. For example, out of the three, I thought that libertarianism was the best choice for me. Libertarianism believes that people have free will and does not think that events from the past would have an impact on a person’s decisions. Determinism is the complete opposite of libertarianism and thinks that events from the past have already determined us and the choices that we make and that there is nothing that we could do about it. Compatibilism is a lot like determinism and believes in some of the things that they do but the only difference is that they acknowledge free will whereas determinism does not really believe in it. Philosophy can be an interesting subject because it can get people to ask questions and to really think about different things. With philosophy, people can form their own ideas and believe in what they want to believe in, and it can often be hard to try and change someone’s mind if they were dedicated to their beliefs. People have asked questions and formed their own ideas and beliefs since the earth began and it does not look like people are going to stop asking questions and forming their own ideas.

Bibliography

1. Chaffee, John, The Philosopher’s Way, New Jersey: Pearson, 2015, p. 640.
2. Berofsky, Bernard, Determinism, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 344.
3. Brennan, Jason, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 213.
4. Powell, Aaron R., Argument for Liberty, Washington D.C., Libertarianism.org Press, 2017, p. 374.