|
|
In Regards to Determinism: A Problem and a Solution There is a problem surrounding the issue of free will and determinism. The problem is if you reject hard determinism on the grounds that it is incompatible with free moral choice, then you are still stuck with explaining how responsible moral choices are made. Contemporary philosophers have advanced a number of theories that attempt to deal with this issue, and many of them in my opinion are insufficient to advocate the theory of free moral choice. In this essay I will advocate a particular theory, known as the Agent Causation Theory, which I believe to be the most effective at explaining the phenomenon of free will. First, I will explain why I find other widely accepted theories unacceptable. The doctrine of Hard Determinism holds that every action has pre-existing causes which determine the exact outcome of an event. In fact, the entire physical world is an intricate chain of cause and effect relationships. Each cause has an effect (event), which in turn becomes a cause for another event or events in the series of chains. Let me illustrate this with an example. If a tree falls in a forest surely you would not say that the tree fell for no reason (or cause). You would conclude that for whatever reason, the tree was caused to fall. It would not make sense to reason that the tree fell without a cause. It could be from a lumberjack chopping the trunk, or it could have a weak root system and be blown over in a wind storm. In any case, it was caused to fall. Determinism holds this principal of cause and effect to everything in the physical world. This means that since your actions are a part of the physical world, and according to modern science they are initiated by your brain, which is also a part of the physical world, they are determined. It seems if we accept the principals of modern science, we must also accept the principal of hard determinism. All our actions are all determined. Therefore, we do not have free will. However, there are many good reasons to conclude that hard determinism is false. If hard determinism is true, it stands to reason that nobody can ever act otherwise than they do. If this is the case, then nobody deserves praise or blame for any of their actions, and therefore no one has moral responsibility. Since moral responsibility is true, determinism must be false. Another strong argument against determinism was outlined by philosopher named Peter Van Inwagen. This is known as the Deliberation Argument. Van Inwagen explains this theory by using an example of a room with two solid steel doors. Suppose that you know one of the doors is welded shut, but you don’t know which one. Now try to imagine deliberating over which door you will use to exit the room. The point is that it makes no sense to deliberate over which door to exit by if you know there is only one possible way to exit.
|
