Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Free will & Moral responsibility - Coggle Diagram
Free will & Moral responsibility
HARD DETERMINISM:
The view that because determinism( all states of affairs are the necessary consequences of previous affairs) is true, no one has free will.
based on concept of 'universal causation' every event in the universe has a cause
applies to physical & mental events ( thoughts, decisions)
ethical choices don't exist- our moral decisions are as determined as anything else
we may think we are free to choose what we do, but freedom is an illusion
therefore we are not logically justified in claiming responsibility for our actions
SCIENTIFIC DETERMINISM:
holds that all events including human actions & choices are determined by antecedent events & states of affairs so there can be no free will
as far as we can tell, all the physical processes in the universe operate in a sequence of causes from the Big Bang, approximately 12.77 billion years ago (inferred from the CMB)
-physics governs everything: therefore every event in the universe is determined by physics
SD can be avoided if the laws of nature are probabilistic or if turns out the quantum world is indeterminate
PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINISM: (SKINNER) - All behaviour is the result of genetic and environmental conditions
all human action depends on the consequence of previous actions
good consequences= repeated, bad consequence= avoidance.
PAVLOVS DOGS- creating idea of 'classical conditioning' - automatic conditioned response is paired with a specific stimulus. This creates a behavior.
WEAKNESSESS:
you cannot apply applications of the principles of animal behaviour to the much more complex human behaviour- its unsound.
if human behaviour is merely a set of conditioned responses, then his own behavioural thesis must be a conditioned response so why should we bother to listen to it?
THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM:
the future is determined by Gods omnipotence(his foreknowledge) s0 there can be no free will
an omniscient god must know the entire past present and future of the universe
AQUINAS & CALVIN- god determines our futures accordingly- he has already decided who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
if god knows a person will perform an acton at some point in their life, that person cannot avoid that action.
WEAKNESSES:
A timeless god: some argue that gods omniscience means he sees the results of our future free choices but does not cause them - he permits humans free choices
a temporal god- alternative view is that god exists in time. if that's the case then god cannot know the future, so TD is false.
LIBERTARIANISM:
despite restraints from genetics and the environment, human beings are free moral agents.
a 'moderate' liberatarian:
wouldn't deny the external world is deterministic
would accept deterministic processes affect beings
would accept that personality to a large extent is governed by hereditary, social situation and environment
would accept certain influences incline us ti act in certain ways
insists human behaviour isn't determined by external causes
because we blame ourselves and feel guilty for our actions, we must therefore be free to choose freely
if we were determined, libertarians argue, we wouldn't feel guilty about choosing certain things
human behaviour is constrained by: physical limitations, psychological limitations and social limitations.
idea of complete freedom makes little sense
WEAKNESSES: - the assumptions of libertarianism is no more provable than HD
STRENGTHS:
we consistently experience ourselves as being free , although determinists dismiss this as an illusion brought about by complex mental processes
COMPATIBALISM:
The view that human freedom and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism
we can be shaped by physical and other laws, and yet at the same time be sufficiently free to make moral and other choices
HUME- thinks we have 'liberty if spontaneity' - the ability to do what you desire
Free will and determinism are held to be incompatible because philosophers haven't defined their terms properly
what we have thought of as 'necessity' in cause and effect is in fact 'constant conjunction'
by liberty we mean ' a power of acting or not acting according to the determination of the will'- so if we choose to move we may, and if we choose to stay at rest, we may
freedom requires determinism because if our wishes and desires were simply random, the order of human life would be lost
STRENGTHS- humes philisophical method is brilliant- it is correct that if we accept his definitions then everything becomes clear.
WEAKNESSES: - For libertarians, humes compatibalism ignores the very power of reason - on Humes account, human reason becomes virtually redundant despite having led him to compatibalism. everything is watered down to 'constant conjunction'