Exploring Free Will: The Clash Between Determinism and Libertarianism
Written on
Chapter 1: The Philosophical Quest for Free Will
Philosophers have long pondered the question of whether free will truly exists. Through rigorous debate and analysis, they have explored various theories that either support or challenge the notion of freedom of choice. Among these theories are Radical Determinism, Moderate Determinism, and Libertarianism.
From an institutional perspective, the discussion surrounding free will is not a trivial matter. The societal understanding of free will influences a wide array of laws, particularly constitutional law, in every nation. On an individual level, the significance of this debate is equally profound. Each person's interpretation of free will can greatly affect their behavior, impacting their role in society, whether consciously or unconsciously.
In this essay, I will advocate for the libertarian perspective, exploring its foundations while critiquing the other two theories.
Radical Determinism
A consensus exists among astronomers that the Universe emerged from a vast series of cause-and-effect relationships. Various sciences—biology, physics, and chemistry—further support the idea that every effect is a result of a preceding cause.
Radical Determinism posits that this scientific principle applies to human actions as well. It argues: “All events are determined. Our actions are events. Therefore, our actions are determined.” If this assertion holds true, then individuals lack free will, meaning that their perceived freedom of choice is merely an illusion. Consequently, the choices we believe to be free are predetermined, making the notion of free will a mere façade.
If this deterministic view is accurate, it raises questions about accountability. If humans are not truly free in their choices, how can they be held responsible for their actions? In such a scenario, obeying the law or committing crimes would be devoid of moral significance.
When philosophers present Radical Determinism as a solution to the free will dilemma, they face a paradox. If radical determinists claim to choose their stance freely, they contradict their own principles. Conversely, if their belief in determinism is coerced, then they lack genuine freedom of thought. This leads to a convoluted situation where the very laws governing the material world also dictate thought processes.
As I pen this essay, I could choose to stop at any moment or continue writing. This conscious choice reflects an undeniable sense of freedom, a shared experience among all of us. Thus, the argument for radical determinism collapses under the weight of this experiential reality.
What if the universe is not entirely determined?
Libertarianism
Philosophers like Aristotle argue that true freedom resides within one's ability to choose to act or refrain from action. Jean-Paul Sartre echoed this sentiment, asserting that human beings possess the freedom to conform or resist circumstances. The essence of freedom, in this view, is the capacity to act without constraint, fully aware of the alternative choices available.
Libertarianism aligns with this notion, asserting that human beings are capable of self-determination, transcending influences from physics, chemistry, or biology. It defines freedom as the ability to decide and act according to one's own will.
While libertarianism acknowledges human free will and the responsibility that accompanies it, it does not thoroughly explain the origin of this freedom. René Descartes introduced the concept of substance dualism, distinguishing between spirit and body. He argued that these two realms are irreducibly different: the spirit represents thought and freedom, while the body embodies determinism and passivity.
When we dream, even though dreams are intangible and lack concrete proof, they are universally recognized as a reality. Similarly, through introspection, we sense that there is more to our existence than mere physicality. This awareness of a deeper aspect of our being underscores the notion of human dignity and the basis for free will.
To truly perceive a work of art, one must step back and gain a broader perspective. In this analogy, the spirit must detach from matter to gain a clearer understanding. This discussion harkens back to ancient philosophical concepts, suggesting the presence of an intelligent principle that animates our material existence.
Descartes famously stated, “The essence of man is to think.” He described humans as entities capable of doubt, affirmation, and emotion. This internal, subjective experience of thought, while intangible, is a fundamental aspect of human nature.
Moderate Determinism
Moderate Determinism asserts that while human actions are indeed determined, there exists a realm of free actions. According to this perspective, individuals can act freely as long as they are not coerced. However, these actions are still influenced by prior causes.
Moderate Determinists believe that our choices, while shaped by past events, can still reflect genuine freedom. For an individual to be truly free, they must have genuine alternative options when making a decision. Nevertheless, if all choices are predetermined, the concept of free will becomes murky.
This blending of determinism and free will creates a conflict: if choices are determined, can they truly be free? If not, this undermines the very concept of freedom, leaving Moderate Determinism struggling to find clarity.
In contrast to Radical Determinism, which denies free will, and Libertarianism, which affirms it, Moderate Determinism attempts to reconcile these opposing views.
Can one be both free and predetermined?
Examining Socrates' Choice
Socrates remains an enigmatic figure in philosophy. Throughout his life, he sought spiritual truths, challenging the prevailing beliefs of his time. His teachings provoked backlash from those in power, ultimately leading to his trial and condemnation.
Socrates was offered a choice: exile, mutilation, or death. He chose death, a decision that can be analyzed through different philosophical lenses.
In the context of Radical Determinism, Socrates' choice appears illusory; everything was predetermined, absolving both him and the state of responsibility for his death.
From the Moderate Determinism perspective, Socrates' condemnation was real, yet he retained the freedom to choose how to respond. His death can thus be viewed as either judicial execution or an act of suicide.
Through the lens of Libertarianism, Socrates' death exemplifies the human capacity for choice and accountability. He believed in the immortality of the soul, arguing that the philosopher's role is to liberate the soul from the confines of the body.
Is it unreasonable to deny humans the right to ponder such profound questions? For Socrates, death was not merely an end but a philosophical choice in life.
The first video titled "Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24" explores the fundamental differences between determinism and free will, offering insights into these philosophical concepts.
The second video, "Free Will and Determinism," delves deeper into the complexities of these theories and their implications for human behavior and responsibility.