The problems with determinism

To show the idea that combatibilism could work is to show the problems that arise from the deterministic theory.

The main problem that comes from determinism is the problem of moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility is the idea that as human beings, we know that our actions have consequences, that if you stab someone, they will get injured and may possibly die, and with that moral responsibility could be the feeling of guilt to the punishment for assault/murder .

We have morals, these are the sets of unwritten rules that we adhere to in order to function in society. If we act immorally, we have punishments.

According to P.F Strawson, moral responsibility is based around our reactive emotions towards someone and these will justify punishment or reward.

 But if the universe is fully determined, then how could we possibly be held accountable for our actions.

Free will is based on the idea that we have a choice and could have done otherwise, but in a world that is wholly deterministic, we can't have done otherwise.

The problem with this topic is that there are so many different account of each aspect that if you analyze one account of an aspect in one way, it may turn out okay but then when you try and apply that approach to a different account of  the same aspect it probably won’t work.

Determinism in a nutshell.

Determinism.

The dictionary meaning of Determinism is this

It’s an idea that is based around the concept that everything is caused. The act or event that has just occurred was caused by the event or act that preceded it. The way you are, what has happened in the world and what will become is all caused.

This idea encompasses both internal psychological causes and external physical causes. So things that happen in your childhood were caused by something and will in turn cause something else. Be it psychological or physical.

What is so difficult about accepting this, is that it makes humans feel less important, like they have no say, a feeling of insignificance. There are people who agree with this position (obviously) but I think these kinds of people probably find the consequences of the idea a lot less threatening. 

(The thing with a lot of philosophical problems is exactly this, that the potential right answer is a lot harder to swallow than the possible wrong answer.)

Free will?

Free will...

Free will...?

The position that believes that we have Free will is known as libertarianism. As I have explained the idea is that we could have done otherwise.

What I find when I read literature about this kind of thing, is that there is no alternate/ parallel universe in which to tell that we could have done otherwise, so how could we possibly know?

It mentions in the linked article that with freedom it requires events of absolute chance. The unfortunate thing about this is there are many events that occur that may look like this, however they only look like this because of our... non-knowledge. If, we knew absolutely everything, not about the future, but about the past we would be able to show a series of event that have enabled said event..

All about incompatibilists

Incompatibilists

So firstly we have Determinism. The jist of this idea is that everything, every action is predetermined that every action is preceded by an action that caused so to cause a chain of events that are all linked.

Secondly we have Free will, or libertarians. This is idea is that nothing is caused and everything that happens, does so because we choose to.

Incompatibilists look like this in a logical argument form

This is what Hard Determinism looks like

If D, then not F

D

­­­­____________

Not F

Or Free Will…

If F, then not D

F

____________

Not D

The idea with compatibilism is that if one is true then the other cannot exist.

Compatibilists explained

Compatibilists

Compatibilists are also fondly known as Soft Determinists.

Hume (Mid 18^th century Philosopher) believed that an action is free if the agent could have done otherwise, had the agent wanted to. But this means that the agents actions are caused by the agents beliefs and values.

So basically, that described action is free and caused.

In a philosophy class the argument of combatibilism looks like 
this

F (Free will)

D (Determinism)

________________

F and D are compatible.

There are two important objections to combatibilism, Firstly the nature of compulsive behaviors such as kleptomainia. Compulsive behavior such as this is an obsession that they believe is their desire. The problem here being is that they (by themselves) probably could not have done otherwise. I say by themselves simply because of the fact that I’m sure there is therapy for these kinds of behaviors, however it’s so heavily assisted, that you would say without them they would be the same.

And secondly, Locke’s locked room.

John Locke is a 17^th Century philosopher, proposed this thought experiment.

A man goes into a room to talk to his friend, on his own accord. This would be considered a free action, however unbeknownst to him, the door has been locked behind him. He thinks he is free, staying in there is his free choice, but is he free?