DETERMINISM is one of theprinciple theories concerningwhat is generally called “thefreedom of the will.”

It is contrasted with two othertheories, libertarianism andcompatibilism, which is sometimescalled soft determinism.

DETERMINISM

The view that there is no such thing asfree will. All human behavior is fixed bysome combination of natural and social laws.

LIBERTARIANISMThe view that free will exists. Human beingsare capable of making choices in a way thatis not determined by the prior causes ofbehavior.

COMPATIBILISMThe view that free will is self-determination.

The Theses of Determinism:

1. all events have causes.

2. any event has a unique set of causes.

3. given that unique set of causes that eventand only that event could have occurred.

Determinism adheres to what iscalled the Principle of AlternativePossibilities.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES

We can be held responsible only for those actions for which there was some alternative.

Since, given the theses of determinism,there are no alternative possibilities,then there is no freedom of will, andwe cannot be held responsible forwhat we do.

Criticisms of Determinism

1. quantum physics and chaos theory seem to cast doubt on theses (2) and (3) above.certain natural phenomena seem to exhibitindeterminate behavior.

2. biological and genetic behavior, althoughpatterned, is subject to change, mutation andvariation.

3. higher cortical functions are reflexive, i.e., they can use information about their behavior in order to change that behavior.

The Libertarian theoryof the will is one of threeprincipal theories regardingthe status of “free will.”

These include:

DETERMINISM

The view that there is no such thing as free will. All human behavior is fixed by some combination of natural and social laws.

COMPATIBILISM

The view that free will is self-determination.

LIBERTARIANISM on theother hand, is The view that free will exists. Human beings are capable of making choices in a way thatis not determined by the prior causes of behavior.

In other words, Libertarianssubscribe to the Principleof Alternative Possibility.

That principle suggests thatno one can be held responsible for their behavior unless there was some alternative.

decisions are not caused events.

not all events are caused.

Theses of Libertarianism

Libertarianism arguesthat if we are to subscribe to the notion of free will, we must suppose that there are some events that arenot caused---at least in the manner in which ordinarythings are caused.

Secondly, that choicesand decisions are examplesof non-caused events.

Libertarians have developed a number oftheories in order toexplain the non-causalcharacter of decision-making.

One theory suggests thata decision is a force thatpushes the indeterminateprocesses of the brainin a certain way.

Because the processes ofthe brain are intederminateand chaotic, then adecision is not a cause andeffect relation.

But if choice is a hit or miss force upon an indeterminateprocess, then it seems that human beings have aslittle control over their mental processes as if theywere completely determined.

Other theories argue thatdecisions are intentionalacts and intentions havea different kind of relationto their objects thancause and effect.

Intentions are goal-directedbehavior.

In this case a future eventorders events which predate it.

Secondly, the relation betweengoal and action, is means toend, not cause to effect.

However, it can be arguedthat although the goalis a future event, ourcognition of the goal is not,and predates and may causeour actions.

It has been shown howthese steering mechanismsand feed-back loops may betreated as complex causalsystems.

A simple example is the thermostatic system in yourfurnace.

Furnace

Thermo

When theroom temperaturerises, the couplerexpands, cutting the circuit, whichcauses the furnaceto turn off.

When the tempcools, the metalcoupler contractsturning thefurnace on.

Thus, it could beargued that decisionsare like steeringmechanisms inthe brain, butstill causal innature.

In general, these are thefollowing criticisms of libertarianism:

It’s doubtful that there areuncaused events.

We have no rational modelsfor how something can interactwith another thing withoutcausing it to do something insome manner.

Compatibilism is one of the threeprincipal accounts of what is popularlycalled “free will.”

DETERMINISMThe view that there is no such thing asfree will. All human behavior is fixed bysome combination of natural and social laws.

It is a theory contrasted with:

LIBERTARIANISM

The view that free will exists. Human beingsare capable of making choices in a way thatis not determined by the prior causes ofbehavior.

Compatibilism arguesinstead thatfree will is self-determination

Self-determination is self-causedbehavior.

Thus, it agrees with determinism, thatall behavior is caused, but it does arguethat we do have “free will” to the extentthat the self is the cause of the behavior.

The self can be understood asthat which is typically associatedwith consciousness, and the higher cortical functions of thebrain.

“FREE WILL”IS NOTHINGMORE THAN THE ABILITYOF ONE PART OF THE BRAIN TO CONTROL ANOTHER, IN THIS VIEW.Higher Cortex

Higher Cortex

Limbic SystemLimbic System

MORALMORALSTRENGTHSTRENGTH

Should be understood as the power ofAUTONOMY

ORSELF-DETERMINATION

Higher CortexHigher Cortex

Limbic SystemLimbic SystemAutonomy ismastery overself, the abilityof certain higher cortical functions to control others.

Under this view, you are free to the extent that the self causesthe behavior in question.

1. all events have a cause.

2. some events have higher corticalevents as their proximate, salient and relevant causes.

3. events of type (2) are free behaviors;that is, self-determination is free behavior.

This can be expressed more carefullyin the following way:

One difficulty with compatibilismis to determine what counts asthe ‘Self’, that is, the self which isconsidered to be the identity of the person, and the locus of self-control.

MORAL LUCK

Moral luck may bedefined as those things outside of one’s controlwhich contribute to the moral quality ofour actions and character:

.

The predeterminants of our moral behavior:including our personality,temperament, and thelike.

These include the following:

The kinds of moral situations we may find ourselves in.

The consequences of actions we may take.

The argument by somephilosophers is thatbecause moral luck isout of our control, yetit effects so much of what we do, then itsuggests that we cannotbe entirely heldresponsible for ouractions.

But others argue that moral luck iscompensated by our ordinaryabilities to anticipate consequencesof our action, to control our emotions,balance and compensate for ourbad characteristics, and to preparefor difficult ethical choices.

MORAL STRENGTHAND

WEAKNESS

Aristotle arguedthat there areseveral typesof characterin regard tothe notion ofmoral strengthand weakness.

divine

virtuous

self-controlled

morally strong

morallyweak

self-indulgent

vicious

brutish

excelsat virtue

preponderanceof virtue

lacks desirefor basepleasures

controls behaviordespite desires

fails at controlof desires

chooses immediateand base pleasures

prefers and enjoysvices

actscruelly and baselyto harm others

CHARACTERaccording to

Aristotle

Persons are morallystrong, according to Aristotle, when they are capableof self-control, despite temptations for somethingthey believe wrong.

The self-controlled person,on the other hand,seems to be someone who has risen to a level where they no longer feel desires for base things oruntoward pleasures.

The virtuous person issomeone who has masteredmost of the virtues.

The divine person is someone who is wholly virtuous.

The morally weak personsare those who intend to dothe good, as they believe it,but often fail to resist thetemptation to do it.

The self-indulgent person,on the other hand, is onewho has the habit of choosingimmediate pleasures withoutregard for their benefit.

They live in a world of immediategratification, and havedifficulty reaching long-termgoals; they lack self-discipline.

The vicious person is onewho enjoys vices and themore base pleasures lifehas to offer.

The brutish person iswicked, and acts cruellyto harm others; just tothe extent that the divine person excels at virtue,the brutish one excels atvice.

Being divine seems to bebeyond human capacity; afew can excel at virtue, somereach the level of self-control;many are morally strong, butmost of us are morally weak.

Because of majority ofpeople fall within the categoryof moral weakness, and becausea morally weak person stillintends to do the good, Platoand Aristotle focus on givingan account of why people aremorally weak.

For Plato, moral weaknessis due to ignorance, that is,lack of knowledge of what isgood.

If people knew what was truly to their benefit, they wouldact upon it. The good and virtuous are to people’s benefit.

People who act with moral weakness, therefore, fail to know that acting virtuously is to theirbenefit.

Aristotle modifies Plato’sthesis somewhat.

Moral weakness is due toignorance, but ignorance oftwo sorts of things: generalsand particulars.

For example, I may not knowgenerally that saturated fatsare bad for my health.

Or, I may not know that thisparticular food containssaturated fats.

In either case, I may actagainst my own benefitbecause of ignorance of thegeneral or the particular, orboth.

But, secondly, besides actingout of ignorance in this sense,I may also act in ignorance.

Acting in ignorance is a formof ignorance because I losemy ability to judge anyinformation I might have atmy disposal.

Intoxication, for example, causesme to act in ignorance.

Some contemporary theories,such as that espoused byDonald Davidson, supportPlato’s view.

He argues that when we actagainst what we believe to bethe right thing to do, then weare acting irrationally.

For example, a smoker isacting irrationally when hecontinues to smoke despitethe fact that he believes itis the wrong thing to do.

As a result, there must be atleast two systems within thebrain, one rational, the otherirrational.

Some, such as John Heil,argue against Davidson,claiming that the brain iscomposed of a number ofsubsystems, all of whichare rational, but competewith one another. The humanbeing is not divided betweenrational and irrational systems.

In support of this position,Yujian Zheng applies Ainslie’spicoeconomic model to thebrain. He employs the notionof the “matching law” to supportHeil’s theory.

The matching law, based onempirical research on animals,shows that future rewards havea tendency to be discountedin the presence of immediaterewards that may be contraryto the goals associated withthe long term ones.

Moral weakness is explained,then, as the result of thematching law.

The immediate pleasure andgratification that the smokergets from smoking a cigaretteoutweighs the more vagueand long term goal of health.

The system associated withthe long-term goals, and thatone associated with the immediate goals, are bothrational—it is simply the casethat immediate pleasures winout for most people who lackthe ability to control thatsystem.

Responsibility is determined bythree conditions:

ACCOUNTABILITY

VOLUNTARINESS

CAUSATION

establishing that the person did theaction which is the proximate causeof the event or outcome

CAUSATION

determining that the action and itsoutcome violated a norm, duty, or lawthat existed between the agents in question.

ACCOUNTABILITY

establishing the degree of both innerand external control of the actions (mens rea).

VOLUNTARINESS

Thus, ideally, to show that someonewas responsible for an action or anoutcome, one should show that theperson did the action which causedthe event; and in doing so, violatedsome norm, and, that the persondid it with some degree of voluntariness.

CAUSATION is established by the following factors:

Was the person’s actions the PROXIMATE, RELEVANT and SALIENT cause of the action?

PROXIMATE cause: that cause nearest inthe causal sequence to the event.

SALIENT: the cause which is mostsignificant in accounting for the event;the efficient cause.

RELEVANT: a cause which is related to the event in a manner that makes the eventprobable.

Accountability

To be accountable or blamed, theremust be a duty, norm, or law thatobligates you in some manner to performor to avoid the action in question.

Being held accountable requires youto answer before an authority whoseduty is to ensure that such normsare adhered to.

Voluntariness is the degree ofinner and external control wehave over the events which havecaused the event in question.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTION

ARISTOTLE’S MAXIM:We are responsible to the degree ofvoluntariness in the action.

According to Aristotle, humanaction can be classified in thefollowing manner, according tothe kind and degree of voluntarinessin it.

VOLUNTARYINVOLUNTARY

Deliberate Impulsive

with ignorance

out of ignorance in ignorance

reckless negligent

under duress

Deliberate actions are those that areintended and planned.

Impulsive actions are those thatare intended at the moment, butnot thought out or planned.

for example: first degree murder

for example: crimes of passion

acting under duress is a case whereone is compelled to do somethingagainst your will, but because itis necessary to avoid some terribleharm to yourself or others.

for example, killing in self-defense

acting out of ignorance occurs whenone is not aware or lacks of knowledgeof the circumstances which cause theevent in question.

for example, a person may shoot someonewith a gun, thinking it was not loaded.

Acting out of ignorance may be dueto two kinds of behaviors:

negligent: failure to do something thatshould have been done as an ordinaryrule of caution.

reckless: gross deviation from rulesof caution.

Acting in ignorance occurs when aperson is not in control of her actions.In general it is a person who acts without competence.

Acting in ignorance may happenunder several different circumstances:

immaturity: children are consideredless responsible for their behavior, sincetheir powers are not fully developed.

development: mentally disabledmay not have the capacity to fully actvoluntarily.

impairment: those who are intoxicatedor addicted act with impaired judgment.

mental illness: an organic mental illnessmay cause persons to lose control of their mental capacities.

Deliberate actions: fully voluntary, since we both intend and plan them out.

Impulsive actions: can be blamed for lack of self-control, since we ordinarily have thepower to control our emotions.

HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?

We can be blamed for failing to not perform certain ordinary precautions.

Acting out of ignorance:

we can be blamed for acting without caution.

HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?

Acting in ignorance

responsibility in proportion to the degree of competence

intoxicationaddictionmental disabilitymental illnessimmaturity

all of these have various legal standards thatare somewhat shifting.

HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?

Acting under duress

Blame in proportion to the control of

the circumstances which bringabout the duress.

HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?

AUTONOMY

Autonomy is generally defined asthe power of a person forself-governance or self-mastery.

Etymologically, it comes from twoGreek words, ‘auto’, meaning self,and ‘nomos’, meaning law.

Autonomy can be thought ofhas having two principal

aspects:

Self-mastery, in turn, has twoaspects: self-control, and self-efficacy.

SELF-MASTERY SELF-DIRECTION

SELF-MASTERY

SELF-DIRECTION

SELF-CONTROLSELF-EFFICACY

AUTONOMY

SELF-CONTROL

The ability to control the positive emotions; to forego short-term pleasures for long-term ones; to inhibit desires.

Self-Control

The ability to endure or suffer; to overcome obstacle and hindrance;to control negative emotions.

Self-efficacy

SELF-DIRECTION

The power to live by a consciously chosen, freely adopted set of directives and standards; the establishment of a well-defined set of goals.

Self-direction

Successful self-mastery leadsto the formation of virtuoushabits. For example, controlover one’s desire for pleasureis traditionally called temperance,while mastery of one’s fear, iscalled bravery.

SELF-MASTERY

SELF-DIRECTION

SELF-CONTROLSELF-EFFICACY

AUTONOMY

VIRTUE

On the other hand, establishingself-direction is a matter ofprudence, or moral wisdom,where one has developed ageneral sense of the good life,and knows how to deliberatewell in order to attain it.

Self-direction also involves establishinga moral code for oneself, and understandingthe basic moral principles which underlie it.This usually involves moral knowledge.

SELF-MASTERY

SELF-DIRECTION

SELF-CONTROLSELF-EFFICACY

AUTONOMY

VIRTUE WISDOM