4A. Free Will: Determinism
The common sense view is that if we look at our life we think we had one past, one history, but
if we look to the future our possibilities are endless. Yesterday I had a salad for lunch. That will
never change. But tomorrow, the possibilities of what I will have for lunch can be huge. I may
have another salad, perhaps leftovers from tonights dinner, perhaps I'll have some fast food, or I
may even choose not to have anything and skip lunch all together.
But think about this, if we were to rewind time to 1950 would history unfold in exactly the same
way. Would we then today in 2017 be here working on this philosophy class. It seems like the
common sense view is that it would. As long as everything was exactly the same, we would
eventually get back to exactly this same point.
If we were able to travel back in time, could I go back and witness the assassination of Kennedy,
and assuming I left absolutely no influence while I was there, would I come back to the present
time and have everything exactly the same? It seems like I should be able to do this.
One reason for this is that we know that the world is determined. Nothing happens for no reason.
When a leaf falls from a tree, it is not the case that it was a random action. It is the case that
something caused the leaf to fall. It could be a combination of causes, but it did indeed have a
cause. Since everything has a cause, everything can be predicted. Apple can make iPhones
because the engineers at Apple know how to predict everything that will happen with the iPhone.
If something is overlooked, it is called a glitch and is fixed. It is not the case that cause is random
and the iPhone will randomly do one thing or another.
This should be true for us too. The brain is just a physical organ and is subject to all the physical
laws. So whatever happens in the brain has a cause. If everything has a cause and nothing is
random, given enough information, we should be able to predict what will happen next.
So, if we roll back the clock to 1950, everything will unwind in the same way because all the
causes will be exactly the same.
If everything has a cause and we had enough information, we should be able to predict what I
will eat for lunch tomorrow. If we can predict what I will eat for lunch tomorrow, can we say I
have free will?
If we know that I will eat a sandwich for lunch tomorrow, is there anything I can do to prevent
myself from not eating the sandwich? You can't just simply say, "Sure, just have some pizza." If
you say this, then our original statement, "we know that I will eat a sandwich tomorrow," was
wrong. If I know I will eat a sandwich tomorrow, then I will eat a sandwich tomorrow and there
is nothing I can do about it. If there is nothing I can do about it, do I have free will?
This is also a problem for religions that believe in an omniscient God. If God knows you are
going to eat a tuna sandwich tomorrow, then you are going to eat a tuna sandwich. There is no
way you will have anything different because God is omniscient. If this is the case, do you have
free will about what you will eat for lunch tomorrow? You may feel like you have free will, but
do you really have a choice?
If the world is determined (and it seems to be) and everything has a non-random cause (which
seems to be the case) then it is already decided what you will do in the future. So, how can we
say we have free will?
This is the problem of free will. Essentially, we seem to have no justification for believing we
have free will. But this is very unintuitive. Everybody believes they have free will.
Also, if there is no free will:
•
•
there is no longer any moral responsibility. The serial killer had no choice but to kill.
we lose motiviation to strive. If the future is set, there is nothing I can do to change it. Why not
just sit on the sofa and wait for it to come?
How can we justify free will.
4B. Hard Determinism
Determinism is not a philosophical theory. It is a scientific theory that says everything has nonrandom cause and everything can be explained.
As we have seen above, determinism leads to the idea that we do not have free will because
everything is determined.
Some philosophers believe that determinism is correct, that the past completely determins the
future, so free will is an illusion.
This philosophical view is known as Hard determinism. Hard determinists believe that the
everything in the physical world has a cause, we are just beings in the physical world, so
everything we do also has a predictable cause. Also, if we had enough information we could
predict everything that will happen in the future. Think of it as a row of standing dominoes. If
you knock over the first domino, they will all fall in a predictable manner. Nothing random will
occur. It is said that Albert Einstein was a Hard determinist.
The strength of Hard determinism is that this theory fits best with the empirical evidence.
Everything seems to have a regular predictable cause and is just subject to great causal chain
already in motion.
There are two weaknesses in Hard determinism:
•
•
Hard determinism is unintuitive.
If Hard determinism is correct, there is no such thing as moral responsiblity.
It is hard to get the mind around the idea that we don't have free will. As you sit there reading
this, you must believe that you have the choice to read this or not. You had the choice to take this
class or not. You had the choice to log in just now or not. You have the choice to listen to music
or study philosophy with your social media on next to you. But if hard determinism is correct,
you never had the choice, it was all predetermined. In fact, is was predetermined 13.7 billion
years ago when the Big Bang occured. It is also already determined what you will eat for lunch
tomorrow. Every meal you will eat from now until your demise is all determined.
If Hard determinism is right, there is not such thing as moral responsibility. A mass murderer
was predetermined to be a mass murderer 13.7 billion years ago. There was nothing that man
could have done to not be a mass murder. This is not to say that we shouldn't put the man away.
He is still a danger to society and should be removed, but we cannot assign any blame to him. It,
therefore, seems wrong to put the man in a tiny cell in a dirty prison with other violent men
feeding him tasteless food everyday. If the man is truly blameless, we shouldn't we still treat the
man with dignity?
Writing Assignment 2
Answer the question in the "Food for Thought" on page 86.
Your answer is to be two pages in length. Double Spaced.
IMPORTANT: As philosophers it is not your opinion that is important, it is your justification for
that opinion that is important. Give me justification that aims to convince everybody that you are
right.
Writing Assignment 2
Answer the question in the "Food for Thought" on page 86.
Your answer is to be two pages in length. Double Spaced.
IMPORTANT: As philosophers it is not your opinion that is important, it is your justification for
that opinion that is important. Give me justification that aims to convince everybody that you are
right.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment