The question that the textbook poses at the very beginning of chapter four is, “Are you Free” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 172)? Most people would look at this question as pretty cut and dry and would answer a resounding yes. Philosophically speaking, it is not that easy of an answer. You have to be willing to look at the question with an open mind, and ask yourself if the choices you make are truly free or if they are governed by forces outside of your control. In the following paper I intend to compare and contrast the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding this question, and come to a conclusion on which I find to be the right answer. I believe the best way to do this is to first lay out the beliefs of each viewpoint. Once I have done this I can compare them, and give my insight on which I believe to be right.
The first viewpoint regarding human freedom is determinism. The thesis of the determinist is that, “Every event (including human actions) has a cause, and the chain of causes leading to any given action by an agent extends back in time to some point before the agent was born” (Koons, 2002, p. 81). This means that there is no such thing as free will, and that there is only one choice we could ever make.
“The determinist view of human freedom is typically based off of the scientific model of the physical universe” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 176). They believe that since events in the physical universe as well as the biological realm consistently display casual connections, and because humans are a part of the physical universe and biological realm, it is a reasonable assumption that all of our actions (and the choices that initiated the actions) are also casually determined, eliminating the possibility of free choice ( Chaffee, 2013, p. 176). Although, this doesn’t take into account the complex relationship between the mind and body, making it a much more complicated situation (Chaffee, 2013, p. 176).
The determinists believe that people are molded by outside forces such as human nature, their environment, psychological forces, and social dynamics (Chaffee, 2013, p. 173). Human nature refers to the inborn nature that every person is genetically hardwired with. In other words we can’t have free choice because we cannot alter our fundamental character (Chaffee, 2013, p.173) Being a product of our environment is saying that we make choices based off of life experience. An example would be a person who grew up in an environment where he was taught to give to charity as opposed to someone who was raised in the projects and commits an armed robbery to provide for himself. According to determinists in either case the person isn’t responsible for their actions because they didn’t choose their environment and were molded by forces beyond their control (Chaffee, 2013 p. 173). Psychological forces refer to the deep psychological impulses that govern our choices and they are formed by people’s earliest relationships and experiences.
Based on this point of view, people may think they are in control but in reality are being controlled by unseen psychological forces. An example would be if you were a habitual liar it really isn’t your fault because you are compelled to lie by psychological forces over which you had no control (Chaffee, 2013, p.173). Determinists also believe that we make choices based on social dynamics. We base our choices off of the need to fit in and be accepted by others. In other words our choices are influenced by our peer groups and other social interactions. In this viewpoint we could argue that a kid who bullies a child is not to blame because his choices are a product of his need to fit in (Chaffee, 2013, p. 173) Even though most people, including determinist, don’t live their lives based off of the assumption that they have no free will and their lives are predetermined, believing it makes sense to strive for a better life, seek spirituality, etc.
Determinists believe that these ideas are based on the illusion of freedom (Chaffee, 2013, p. 178). I thought that Baron d’Holbach summarized the determinists viewpoint when he said, “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 178). One of the strengths of the determinist viewpoint is that it is hard to argue against. There are definite patterns and connections throughout the physical universe and the biological realm. There is no denying that fact. Just look at modern chemistry or how everything is made up of waves. Also, you can’t prove that you ever had more than one choice since there can only ever be one choice. In other words, once the moment is gone it is impossible to say that things could have been different since there is no going back. It is also hard to deny that some of our actions are a result of certain causes.
You can always argue that something in your past affected your choices in the present. Whether it’s true or not is up for debate. In my opinion, the determinist viewpoint leaves a lot to be desired as a human. One of the strongest weaknesses of determinism is that it doesn’t account for the human experience. It doesn’t account for the randomness that is life. Determinism is taking the easy way out, and not holding yourself accountable for your actions. This is what makes determinism a dangerous prospect to society. If we aren’t responsible for our actions and they are already predetermined, why try and teach morality? If human actions are predictable as determinists believe then why doesn’t society practice prepunishment, or,”a punishing of people who, it is believed, are going to commit a crime, before the crime is committed (Smilansky, 2007)? While I believe that we are influenced by our environment, I don’t believe we have to become a product of it. Compatibilism, or “soft determinism,” is an alternate version of determinism that allows for some “free will.” Compatibilist, like determinist, believe that all events, including human actions, are caused. Where compatibilist differ is that they believe that we can consider human actions “free” if they are the result of internal motivations, and not from external influences or constraints. Compatibilist maintain that we can distinguish between actions that are compelled by external constraints and those that are not (Chaffee, 2013, p. 174).
People’s choices are free if they are not prevented from acting on their unimpeded natural desires, even if those natural desires may be determined by factors in their history (Chaffee, 2013, p. 174) Compatibilism is the effort to try and find common ground between hard determinism and indeterminism (Chaffee, 2013, p.185) Although all compatibilist agree that we can distinguish between internal and external constraints, there are varying viewpoints of compatibilism. Mortitz Schlick proposed that there are times when internal constraints such as mental illness can act as a factor that inhibits us from our natural tendencies (Chaffee, 2013, p.191). Another, more modern, compatibilist Daniel Dennett believes that humans are “evolved organisms lacking a spiritual self or immortal soul” (Chaffee, 20213, p.192). Dennett believes in determinism in the sense that “there is in any instant exactly one physically possible future.” But he also believes that “Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us” (Chaffee, 2013, p.192). He believes that humans have evolved “free will,” and it is uniquely ours as a species. It is only because Dennett is trying to achieve compatibility between determinism and libertarianism that he is considered a compatibilist.
In my opinion compatibilism only exists because determinists were afraid of the consequences determinism would have on society. It is pretty much the same theory as determinism it just leaves room for morality even though we still only have one choice to be made. This is the only strength it has that determinism does not. It accounts for some sort of free will, even if the definition is lackluster. Compatibilism is like saying that we have free will, but it doesn’t matter because we will come to the same conclusion. That isn’t really free will in my opinion. The weaknesses are the same as determinism in that it doesn’t account for the human experience. I guess compatibilist could argue that there is a sense of morality in the “free” choices we make, but if there is still only one conclusion that our choices could lead us to, is it really free? Another weakness of compatibilism is that d’Holbach has already acknowledged internal constraints, and he has made a sound argument as to why they should be seen as unfree. The final viewpoint regarding freedom is libertarianism. This is pretty much the opposite of what the determinists believe.
“Libertarians believe that people are able to make genuinely free choices by exercising their free will” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 193). They believe that we are fully responsible for our actions with no excuses to be made. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions (Boaz, 1999) American philosopher William James believed the fact that most people lived their lives based on the assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts is a compelling reason for believing in the reality of the concepts themselves (Chaffee, 2013, p.194). Our belief in self-improvement, morality, religion, and social improvement are a testament to our belief in free choice. For without free choice improvement in any of these areas would be for naught, because we would be on a predetermined track. James says that there are two ways in which people can view the world.
The way of the determinist, “who see a universe of actualities, in which no other possibilities exist other than those that occur. If the events of the universe were a story, there is one way and one way only that the story could ever be told” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 197). The other is the libertarian point of view where there is a universe of possibilities, and no matter what events occurred in the past, there are still multiple possibilities in the future (Chaffee, 2013, p.197). Since there is no way to prove one way or another based on fact, James asks us to ask the question which one makes the most sense to us, seems the most rational, and is consistent with our deepest convictions (Chaffee, 2013, p. 198)?
Sartre is a libertarian French philosopher who believes we are condemned to be totally free, making us completely responsible for what we are. He believes that existence precedes essence. In other words our existence comes before who we are. We determine by our choices the people we will become. It is totally on us to become who we want to be, and in doing so Sartre believes that accepting one’s responsibility is not a sole individual project: It takes place in a social context and embodies an enlightened sense of moral responsibility to humanity as a whole (Chaffee, 2013, p. 207). He is saying that if we choose to steal we are saying that it is okay for the whole of humanity to steal. It is a way to give Sartre’s libertarian belief system a sense of morality. I think that by now you can see that I am in favor of the libertarian point of view. It is my belief that we have free will and are able to make logical choices for ourselves, regardless of our environment or any other factor.
I think that Sartre goes a little too far by saying that making a choice we are saying that humanity as a whole should be making the same choice. I think that he should have generalized his viewpoint by saying that every individual has their ideal “self” that they strive to be, but every once in a while we make choices that we regret. Like James said we all have choices of regret that we wish we could go back and change. If Sartre had said this in regards to his libertarian viewpoints, I would be in total agreement with him. It just doesn’t make sense to me that our lived experience is on a railway with only one destination. It doesn’t take into account our experiences in the world as human beings. I refuse to believe that I am in no way in control of how my life will turn out. If the majority of people thought this way we would live in an anarchist society with everyone doing as they pleased, because “they couldn’t help it.” Call me a dreamer, but I would like to believe that the world is full of possibilities.
