Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
free will and moral responsibility - Coggle Diagram
free will and moral responsibility
hard determinism
all events the necessary consequence of antecedent events
no free will
universal causation
every event in universe has cause (physical and mental)
Big Bang began chain of cause and effect, influencing every event that occurs now
network of causes and conditions existing at any given moment sufficient to determine all future events
therefore our moral choices determined
ethical choices do not exist
no MR
illusion of freedom
we believe we make free choices
just undergoing complex calculation, outcome of which already determined
Spinoza- 'feeling of freedom' just ignorance of all causes operating upon us
due to limited nature of human awareness
so not logically justified in claiming MR
no free will
reductionism
all parts of the world and our own experience can be reduced down to one singular thing
see our minds as capable of making free decisions
but our these mental states of 'choice' are just brain states, which can be reduced to biology
biological states are physical states
physical world deterministic
therefore no FW/MR
what appears to be free action is just cumulative effects of other actions
scientific determinism
observation of physical nature- cause and effect beginning with BB and culminating in present (and from present back to Big Bang)
no 'gaps' in chain of causation into which 'mental' input could be inserted and have influence
no FW/MR
everything arises in dependence upon other things
equations in physics deterministic
every event governed by physics
no FW/MR
weaknesses
if laws of nature probabilistic
if quantam world indeterminate
psychological determinism
Skinner
all behaviour the result of genetic and environmental conditions
operant conditioning
disposed to repea actions with good consequences and avoid those with bad
no FW
denied existense of internal psychological states like inentions and purposes, and denied free will
Pavlov's dogs
classical conditioning
weaknesses
Chomsky- proposals just futile behaviourist speculation and assumption
application of principles of animal behaviour to much more complex human behaviour is unsound
theological determinism
future determined by God's omniscience
so no FW
doctrine of Predestination
God is omniscient so knows entire past, present and future of universe and humanity
Calvin 'some ordained to glory, through the sheer will of God, the rest ordained to eternal torment'
God's foreknowledge must be causal
if God knows you will do 'x' in the future, you cannot avoid doing 'x'
so FW must be an illusion
all events must be determined by God's omniscience
weaknesses
dependent on whether or not God exists
useless to athiests
even if God sees results of our future free will choices, it doesn't guarantee that he causes them
may have the power to intervene but he doesn't as he permits human free will
a temporal God
e.g. Process theologians
if God exists in time then he cannot know the future
libertarianism
all forms of determinism are false
human beings act as free moral agents
have FW and MR
moderate libertaians
accept that the external world is deterministic
these deterministic process affect living beings
personality to a large extent governed by genes, social and environmental factors, etc.
such influences incline us to act in certain ways
however human behaviour is not
determined
by external causes
always have the choice to do otherwise
e.g. kleptomaniac (psychologically and genetically disposed to steal) still may not steal so not an absolute conclusion
we experience ourselves as free in everyday decision-making and we have a sense of moral responsibility (e.g. guilt with wrong decisions)
suggests free will
'common sense' argument
can choose what to do therefore must accept MR
human behaviour still constrained by certain limitations
physical
e.g. running a mile in ten seconds
e.g. not MR for not running a mile in ten seconds to save someone's life
psychological
some strong psychological motivations for certain choices over others
some influence on what we choose depending on degree of motivation
social
limited by financial, social and political structures
perception of life and our choices influenced by our circumstances
conforming to social expectations is easier than being anti-social and rebelling against social norms
these limitations are acceptable due to the
'paralysis' of total freedom
experience of freedom requires limitations to make sense
e.g. you are free to choose anything off the menu, but there must be a menu of options first
evaluation
strengths
we assume we are free
e.g. moral guilt when making wrong choice
seems correct at face value, matches everyday experience
those who claim we are determined must merely be making a determined statement, so why should we listen?
positive approach to moral decision-making
deliberating rationality about achievable goals, rather than following a predetermined and unalterable path directed by past events
future can be self-directed
weaknesses
makes assumptions which aren't known to be true
no more probable than those of HD
determinists- evidence for HD but not determinism
e.g. laws of physics
(libertarians- determinism affects physical systems but not the mind
determinists- 'feeling of freedom' just ignorance of causes operating upon us, an illusion
compatibilism
human FW and moral responsibility compatible with determinism
-can be shaped by physical and other laws, but at the same time sufficiently free to make moral and other choices
Soft Determinism
Hume
'liberty of spontaneity' rather than 'liberty of indifference'
indifference- being free of causal necessity
spontaneity- the ability to do what you desire
what we have thought of as necessity in cause and effect is actually 'constant conjunction'
constant conjunction can be observed in human nature
in society we depend on each other to the extent that hardly anything is ever done without reference to others
e.g. farmer
physical events and human actions and desires form one linked chain
liberty requires necessity
if our wishes and desires were random, the order of human life would be lost
our desires flow from our personality that is genuinely our own
our personality is the sum total of the causal conditions that have created us
freedom is the expression of this character
to act according to our own esires, without restraint from external factors
non-freedom is not being able to carry out your desires because you are forced to do something else by physical restraint or coercive threats
evaluation
strengths
solves debate of freedom and determinism
if we agree that Hume's definitions correct
weaknesses
hard determinists- wishes and desires just the product of absolute causal factors
cannot in any way be free
libertarians- reason allows us to make real moral choices by which our lives become meaningful
for Hume reason seems indistinguishable from the forces of nature