Hard determinism
Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on
Hard determinism is contrasted with
History
Classical era
In
The Bhagavad Gita, a classical Indian text composed around 4th century BCE, also mentions hard deterministic ideas. Krishna, the personification of Godhead, says to Arjuna in the verse 13.30:
They alone truly see who understand that all actions (of the body) are performed by material nature, while the self actually does nothing.
Modern era
In the 17th century, both John Locke[8] and Baruch Spinoza[9] argued for strict causality of volitional acts.
Men are deceived because they think themselves free…and the sole reason for thinking so is that they are conscious of their own actions, and ignorant of the causes by which those actions are determined.
— Baruch de Spinoza, The Philosophy of Spinoza, "The Nature and Extent of Human Knowledge", p. 175[10]
In the
Contemporary history
Recently, Daniel Wegner stressed the limitations of free will on grounds of experimental evidence for unconscious choice and action.[14] To prove determinism, the following putative experiment was proposed: all principal differences between the features of an artificial zygote and that developing naturally can be avoided.[15]
Overview
Meeting a challenge, agents make decisions in conformity to the inherited character, life history, and current stimuli. The field of acute attention is limited, and motives partly remain unconscious. From the first person's perspective, we have an intuitive commitment that many options are available. However, if the total of the mental content is considered from the third person's perspective, only a single decision deemed by the agent as the most favorable at the moment turns out real. The validity of causation for any mental event becomes apparent taking into account their neurophysiological correlates.[16] Different causal descriptions correspond to the mental and physical domain.[17] Laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics govern the latter. Admitting downright mental causation of physiological impulses would mean surplus determination. The surmise that under identical conditions, alternative decisions and actions are possible is disproved by naturalists as an illusion.[18] Hard determinism is not taken to refer merely to a determinism on earth, but in all of reality (e.g. involving the effects of light from other galaxies, etc.); not just during a certain deterministic period of time, but for all time. This also means that the relation of necessity will be bi-directional. Just as the initial conditions of the universe presumably determine all future states, so too does the present necessitate the past. In other words, one could not change any one fact without affecting the entire timeline. Because hard determinists often support this eternalist view of time, they do not believe that there are genuine chances or possibilities, only the idea that events are 100% likely.[19]
Unlike "law fundamentalists", some philosophers are "law pluralists": they question what it means to have a law of physics. One example is the "Best Standards Analysis", which says that the laws are only useful ways to summarize all past events, rather than there being metaphysically "pushy" entities (this route still brings one into conflict with the idea of free will).[
The
Implications for ethics
Hard determinists reject free will. Critics often suggest that, in so doing, the hard determinist also rejects ethics. The key to this argument rests on the idea that holding a person morally responsible requires them to make a choice between two, or more, truly possible alternatives. If choice is indeed impossible, then it would be incorrect to hold anyone morally responsible for his or her actions. If this argument holds, hard determinists are restricted to moral nihilism. This feature, however, is tenable only as far as hard determinists discard responsibility. In a necessitarian world, recourse to merit and blameworthiness is toned down while adherence to ethical and legal values is not ruined. Persons may be appreciated as carriers, executors, and defenders of morality. Alternatively, the choice to be regretful of past misdeeds becomes unreasonable. Nevertheless, one can admonish oneself for one's lapses and resolve to avoid similar behavior in the future.[21] Those hard determinists who defend
Hard determinists acknowledge that humans do, in some sense, "choose," or deliberate—although in a way that obeys natural laws. For example, a hard determinist might see humans as a sort of thinking machines, but believe it is inaccurate to say they "came to a decision" or "chose". Generalization of event causation should circumvent overstatement of external impulses. Autotelic personalities show a high rate of activities all by themselves. The capacity to resist psychological assault is impressive evidence of autarkic resources. Determinists even admit that with corresponding knowledge, changes in the genetic depository and consequently behavior are possible.
Up to now, the concepts and terminology of legal affairs follow the pre-reflexive belief in alternative possibilities. As scientific insight advances, the juridical attitude becomes increasingly "external": there should be fewer emotions about offender's will and more concern about the effects of offenses on society. The retributive function of punishment should be rejected as irrational and unjustified. "Lex talionis" is discarded already because of deficient correlation between crime and penalty. If the inveterate notion of "mens rea" is used at all, then only to distinguish intentional actions from inadvertent ones and not to designate an autonomous undertaking of the lawbreaker. At the same time, it is justified to require the perpetrator to critically reconsider his intentions and character, to demand apology and compensation in victims' favor. The rehabilitation service should be used to train the risky circle for keeping the norms of social life.[23]
Psychological effects of belief in hard determinism
Research on the psychological effects of a belief in hard determinism, including attitudes towards causal determinism, is ongoing and presents mixed results. While some studies suggest that certain perspectives on free will and determinism can influence moral decision-making, the direct impact of such beliefs on specific behaviors, such as aggressiveness, compliance, or helpfulness, remains a complex and open area of study. The relationship between these philosophical beliefs and changes in self-assessment or behavior is not yet fully understood and requires further empirical investigation.[24]
William James was an American pragmatist philosopher who coined the terms "soft determinist" and "hard determinist" in an influential essay titled "The Dilemma of Determinism".[25] He argued against determinism, holding that the important issue is not personal responsibility, but hope. He believed that thorough-going determinism leads either to a bleak pessimism or to a degenerate subjectivism in moral judgment. He proposed the way to escape the dilemma is to allow a role for chance. James was careful to explain that he would rather "debate about objects than words", which indicates he did not insist on saying that replacing determinism with a model including chance had to mean we had "free will."
The determinist would counter-argue that there is still reason for hope. Whether or not the universe is determined does not change the fact that the future is unknown, and might very well always be. From a naturalist point of view, a person's actions still play a role in the shape of that future. Founder and director of the Center of Naturalism, Thomas W. Clark, explains that humans are not merely the playthings of patterned, natural forces in the universe—but rather we are ourselves examples of those forces.[26] The deterministic view aligns our representations with the faculties and possibilities we actually possess but it should avoid misleading introspection. Admitting agents' dependence on a drastic background can enhance insight, moderate severity and spare unproductive suffering.[27] Insofar as the mind comprehends universal necessity, the power of emotions is diminished.[28]
See also
References
- ^ Vihvelin, Kadri (2011). "Arguments for Incompatibilism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 ed.).
- ISBN 978-1-4411-3867-5. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- ^ "Philosophy-Dictionary.org on "Hard Determinism"". Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 24 April 2011.
- ^ Plato, Protagoras, 345e; 358c.
- ^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum On the Nature of the Gods, I, 35 (XIII).
- ISBN 0199595186.
- ^ Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. H. Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. II, 20, 340.55-342.61.
- ^ Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, XXI.
- Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order], Pars II, Propositio XXXV, Scholium; Propositio XLVIII.
- ^ de Spinoza, Baruch. The Philosophy of Spinoza, edited by J. Ratner. USA: Tudor Publishing, [1926] 2010. p. 175
- System of Nature.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1818. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung [The World as Will and Representation]. I Band. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam Jr. [s.a.]. S.167.
- ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1886. Jenseits von Gut und Böse [Beyond Good and Evil]. Leipzig: C.G.Neumann. S.21.
- ^ Wegner, Daniel. 2003. "The mind's best trick: How we experience conscious will." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2):65–69.
- ISBN 978-0-19-537439-1.
- ISBN 978-0198242826.
- ^ Searle J. "Mental causation, conscious and unconscious", Int J.Philosophical Studies (2000), Volume 8, p.171-177.
- ^ Walter H. 2002. "Neurophilosophy of free will." Pp. 565–75 in Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ a b c Hoefer, Carl. [2003] 2016. "Causal Determinism" (revised). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Chown, Markus (June 1998). "Anything goes". New Scientist. 158 (2157).
- ^ Pereboom, Derk, ' 'Meaning in life without free will ‘‘, in Oxford Handbook of Free Will, Oxford:Oxford University Press [2002], p.477-488.
- ^ Harris, Sam. 9 September 2012. "Life Without Free Will Archived 27 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine." SamHarris.org.
- ^ Carusom Gregg D. 2016. "Free will skepticism and criminal behavior: A public health-quarantine model." Southwest Philosophy Review 32(1).
- ^ Baumeister, R. F., C. J. Masicampo, and C. N. De Wall. 2009. "Prosocial benefits of feeling free: disbelief in will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(2):260–68.
- ^ James, William. "The Dilemma of Determinism." University of Kentucky.
- ^ "Naturalism.org, "Free Will and Naturalism: A Reply to Corliss Lamont"". Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
- ^ Mazlovskis Arnis.' 'On free will and determinism' ‘.’ 'Reliğiski-filozofiski raksti' '[Religious-Philosophical Articles] (2015), XIX, p.22-42. ISSN 1407-1908.
- ^ de Spinoza, Benedict. [1677] 2009. Ethics, translated from R. H. M. Elwes. part V, proposition VI.