Transcript Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility

Determinism, Free Will, and
Moral Responsibility


Traditional threats to free will: Fatalism
(every event was meant).
Predestination (every event is willed by
God). Divine foreknowledge (every
event is eternally known by God).
Determinism: Every event is caused by
a sequence of antecedent events.
Does determinism make free
will an illusion?


Libertarianism: We
are free,
determinism is false.
Hard determinism:
“Free will” is an
illusion, our behavior
is determined by
genes and
environment.

Compatibilism (soft
determinism): Our
behavior is causally
determined but we are
responsible for what we
do. Our capacity to
restrain present impulse
to avoid predictable
harm does not depend
on escaping causal
determination.
Obstacles to Incompatibilism


Libertarianism (incompatibilist indeterminism):
Introduces a mysterious sort of agency that
transcends physical laws. Implies that there can be
no science of human behavior. Dualism (the belief
that the self is immaterial) is no longer a viable
position (no explanatory power, inconsistent with
evolutionary theory,….)
Hard determinism (incompatibilist determinism): By
regarding belief in free will as illusory, hard
determinism eliminates moral responsibility and
makes deliberation futile. But, the ability to
deliberate is an evolutionary advantage, not an
illusion.
The Evolution of Agency

The human brain is the
product of six million
years of evolution. The
complexity of our brains
provides us with the
unique capacity for
language. Linguistic
ability enables us to
anticipate future events
and to deliberate about
how to realize or avoid
possible outcomes.

A rational agent is a
utility maximizer. A UM
deliberates about
alternative outcomes,
assigns an expected
utility to each, and then
attempts to realize the
outcome with the
highest expected utility.
A UMs actions are
caused and free.
Compatibilist Deliberation
Free action: An
uncompelled action that
an agent chooses to
perform as the result of
a process of rational
deliberation. Free
choices are caused by a
process of deliberation.
Here I stand, I can do no
other.” Luther
Religious Epistemology

Forget faith, brothers, I’ve
got logic.
Religious
Rationalism: The
existence of God can
be proven. Unbelief
is irrational.
Anselm, Aquinas,
Paley.
Belief when the evidence is
ambiguous.

Fideism: Objective
evidence for God’s
existence is neither
possible nor
desirable; it must be
accepted on faith.
Kierkegaard.

Voluntarism: The
existence of God
cannot be proven or
disproven, but
religious belief is
rational if our
passions lead us to
prefer the religious
hypothesis. (James)
Ambiguity and religious belief

Religious empiricism:
The existence of God
cannot be
demonstrated, but
reports of religious
experience provide
evidence for the
existence of an Ultimate
Reality.

Naturalism: Naturalistic
explanations (of the
origin of the universe
and human life, and of
claims to religious
experience) are superior
to supernaturalistic
explanations. Hence,
religious belief is
probably illusory.
The Five Ways of Aquinas




First Way: change,
motion.
P1. Everything moved
is moved by something
outside itself.
P2. Infinite sequence
of movers- impossible.
\ A first, unmoved
mover must exist =
God.
This argument is so moving!
2nd way of Thomas




Whatever exists has a cause.
Nothing can be the cause of itself.
Causes can’t go back infinitely, for, if
there was no first cause, there could be
no subsequent causes.
\ There must be a first uncaused
cause of the causal series. = God.
Where true charity is found, God himself is
there. Thomas Aquinas



3rd way: Many
things are
contingent.
If everything is
contingent, then
once there was
nothing.
\ Something must
be necessary =God

4th Way: Some
things are sort of
wise and not too
pretty. Something is
sort of wise by
sharing in perfect
wisdom. \ A
supreme being
exists. = God
Teleology

(5th way)
Nature operates
according to regular
patterns that allow life
to flourish. It is no
accident that the goal
of flourishing is
everywhere attained.
An unconscious thing
attains its goal only
when guided by
intelligence.




\ An intelligent force
guides the universe. =
God.
Paley: Find a watch,
infer a watchmaker.
The human eye is more
complex than a Rolex.
\ It is highly probable
that a divine eye
designer exists.
Disteleology


Natural selection
and genetic
mutation explain the
slow evolution of the
eye.
The big bang
hypothesis explains
the origin of our
universe.
Are you sure the fossil
record will confirm this?
Is the universe described by theism the
universe we inhabit?


Hume’s critique:
The design argument
rests on a weak
analogy. The universe
is unlike any product
designed by humans.
Living things differ from
artifacts in relevant
ways (begotten not
made; organic; etc.)



We have no past
experience of the
origins of a universe.
The design argument
fails to show that the
designer is all powerful,
morally good, or one
god rather than a divine
committee.
Wouldn’t an all powerful
creator display better
craftsmanship?
J.S. Mill’s Natural Theology

The empirical evidence suggests that our
universe was probably designed by a finite
god who is benevolent but not clearly just. A
god who allows evil, disease, ignorance, and
suffering to attain some greater good is not
omnipotent. If the creator is morally good
that Being intended nature as a scheme to be
amended, not imitated, by man. We must
assist god in ameliorating the human
condition.
The Problem of Evil




God is all powerful.
God is perfectly good.
Evil exists. [Inconsistent statements]
If God is all powerful, he could
eliminate evil and suffering. If God is
perfectly good he would wish to
eliminate evil and suffering.
Theodicies

Deny omnipotence.
Kushner When Bad

Things Happen to
Good People.


Deny the reality of
evil: Christian
Science.
Cosmic harmony.

Free will requires
evil (natural evil
too? how much is
required?)
Soul making: A
pilgrim’s long
journey towards
moral perfection
If evil is just an illusion then the illusion that evil exists is an evil
Objections


Denying omnipotence
solves the logical
problem but leaves the
question of God’s
apparent absence
unresolved.
Claiming that evil is
illusion creates a new
evil, viz., the
widespread delusion
that evil exists.



The extent of evil and
suffering leaves one
wondering, does the
harmonious end justify
the means?
Free will helps with
moral evil but doesn’t
address natural evils.
How much suffering is
required to shape a
soul?
Pascal’s Wager
Belief Options
Disbelieve
Believe
Possible
Realities
Existential
Outcomes
Eternal Bliss!
Eternal Hell!!!
Wasted Sundays.
Had less fun.
Lived without illusion.
God is
No God
The Cosmic Casino

God is, or he is not. But to which side shall
we incline? Reason cannot decide it at all.
There is an infinite chaos that separates us.
A game is being played, at the extremity of
this infinite distance, in which heads or tails
must come up…. Let us weigh the gain and
the loss, in taking heads that God exists…. If
you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose
nothing. Wager, then, That He is, without
hesitation. (Blaise Pascal)
The Will To Believe


I. Our epistemic situation-- theoretic
ambiguity (evidence for and against
God’s existence is inconclusive).
II. Our existential situation:


A. Importance- “it matters greatly to us.”
A momentous hypothesis
B. Inevitability of choosing; forced
hypothesis.
William James concludes:

When we are forced
to decide on a
momentous issue
with inconclusive
evidence, it is
rational to follow our
instincts and
desires, to embrace
the religious
hypothesis.

John Hick wonders:
Is the will to believe
a license for wishful
thinking?

Can the argument
support a right to
believe if religious
experience confirms
that an Ultimate
Reality exists?
Midterm Review






Pt I. Matching. Match the
philosopher with his quote:
Thales, Democritus,
Parmenides, Heraclitus (wk
1),Socrates (wk 2), Aquinas,
(wk 3) Hume, Mill, Pascal,
James (wk 4)
Part II. Short answer.
1.Objection to piety definition
(Euthyphro)(2)
2. The Socratic Mission (2)
3.James- skeptical balance (4)
4.Religious ambiguity(3,4)



Pt. III. Essay (a) teleological
(design) argument or (b)
problem of evil.
Part IV. Multiple choice
1. Definitions- libertarianism,
hard determinism,
compatibilism. 2. Problem of
evil as objection to argument
for God’s existence. 3. Why
Plato opposes prayer/sacrifice
piety. 4. Definition of “rational
agent.” 5. Why Mill thinks God is
finite. 6. Heraclitus’ main point.
7. Famous Socrates quote.