Transcript Document

DETERMINISM is one of the
principle theories concerning
what is generally called “the
freedom of the will.”
It is contrasted with two other
theories, libertarianism and
compatibilism, which is sometimes
called soft determinism.
DETERMINIS
M
The view that there is no such thing as
free will. All human behavior is fixed by
some combination of natural and social laws
LIBERTARIANISM
The view that free will exists. Human beings
are capable of making choices in a way that
is not determined by the prior causes of
behavior.
COMPATIBILISM
The view that free will is self-determination.
The Theses of Determinism:
1. all events have causes.
2. any event has a unique set of causes.
3. given that unique set of causes that event
and only that event could have occurred.
Determinism adheres to what is
called the Principle of Alternative
Possibilities.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
We can be held
responsible only
for those actions
for which there
was some alternative.
Since, given the theses of determinism,
there are no alternative possibilities,
then there is no freedom of will, and
we cannot be held responsible for
what we do.
Criticisms of Determinism
1. quantum physics and chaos
theory seem to cast doubt on
theses (2) and (3) above.
certain natural phenomena
seem to exhibit
indeterminate behavior.
2. biological and genetic
behavior, although
patterned, is subject to
change, mutation and
variation.
3. higher cortical functions
are reflexive, i.e., they can
use information about their
behavior in order to change
that behavior.
The Libertarian theory
of the will is one of three
principal theories regarding
the status of “free will.”
These include:
DETERMINISM
The view that there is no such
thing as free will. All human
behavior is fixed by some
combination of natural and
social laws.
COMPATIBILISM
The view that free will is
self-determination.
LIBERTARIANISM on the
other hand, is The view
that free will exists.
Human beings are
capable of making
choices in a way that
is not determined by
the prior causes of
behavior.
In other words, Libertarians
subscribe to the Principle
of Alternative Possibility.
That principle suggests that
no one can be held responsible
for their behavior unless there
was some alternative.
Theses of Libertarianism
not all events are caused.
decisions are not caused events.
Libertarianism argues
that if we are to
subscribe to the
notion of free will,
we must suppose
that there are some
events that are
not caused---at least
in the manner in
which ordinary
things are caused.
Secondly, that choices
and decisions are examples
of non-caused events.
Libertarians have
developed a number of
theories in order to
explain the non-causal
character of decision-making.
One theory suggests that
a decision is a force that
pushes the indeterminate
processes of the brain
in a certain way.
Because the processes of
the brain are intederminate
and chaotic, then a
decision is not a cause and
effect relation.
But if choice is a hit
or miss force upon an
indeterminate
process, then it
seems that human
beings have as
little control over
their mental
processes as if they
were completely
determined.
Other theories argue that
decisions are intentional
acts and intentions have
a different kind of relation
to their objects than
cause and effect.
Intentions are goal-directed
behavior.
In this case a future event
orders events which predate it.
Secondly, the relation between
goal and action, is means to
end, not cause to effect.
However, it can be argued
that although the goal
is a future event, our
cognition of the goal is not,
and predates and may cause
our actions.
It has been shown how
these steering mechanisms
and feed-back loops may be
treated as complex causal
systems.
A simple example is the
thermostatic system in your
furnace.
When the
room temperature
Thermo
rises, the coupler
expands, cutting the
circuit, which
causes the furnace
to turn off.
When the temp
cools, the metal
coupler contracts
turning the
furnace on.
Furnace
Thus, it could be
argued that decisions
are like steering
mechanisms in
the brain, but
still causal in
nature.
In general, these are the
following criticisms of
libertarianism:
It’s doubtful that there are
uncaused events.
We have no rational models
for how something can interact
with another thing without
causing it to do something in
some manner.
Compatibilism is
one of the three
principal accounts
of what is popularly
called “free will.”
It is a theory contrasted with:
DETERMINIS
M
The view that there
is no such thing as
free will. All human
behavior is fixed by
some combination
of natural and
social laws.
LIBERTARIANISM
The view that free will
exists. Human beings
are capable of making
choices in a way that
is not determined by
the prior causes of
behavior.
Compatibilism argues
instead that
free will is
self-determination
Self-determination
is self-caused
behavior.
Thus, it agrees with determinism, that
all behavior is caused, but it does argue
that we do have “free will” to the extent
that the self is the cause of the behavior.
The self can be
understood as
that which is
typically
associated
with consciousness,
and the
higher cortical
functions of the
brain.
“FREE WILL”IS NOTHING
MORE THAN THE ABILITY
OF ONE PART OF THE
BRAIN TO
CONTROL ANOTHER
Limbic System IN THIS VIEW.
MORAL
STRENGTH
Should be understood as the power of
AUTONOMY
OR
SELF-DETERMINATION
Autonomy is
mastery over
self, the ability
of certain higher
cortical functions to
control others.
Limbic System
Under this view, you are free
to the extent that the self causes
the behavior in question.
This can be expressed more carefully
in the following way:
1. all events have a cause.
2. some events have higher cortical
events as their proximate, salient and
relevant causes.
3. events of type (2) are free behaviors;
that is, self-determination is free behavior.
One difficulty with compatibilism
is to determine what counts as
the ‘Self’, that is, the self which is
considered to be the identity of
the person, and the locus of self-control.
MORAL LUCK
Moral luck may be
defined as those
things outside
of one’s control
which contribute
to the moral
quality of
our actions and
character:
These include the following:
.
The predeterminants
of our moral behavior:
including our personality,
temperament, and the
like.
The kinds of moral
situations we may find
ourselves in.
The consequences of
actions we may take.
The argument by some
philosophers is that
because moral luck is
out of our control, yet
it effects so much of
what we do, then it
suggests that we cannot
be entirely held
responsible for our
actions.
But others argue that moral luck is
compensated by our ordinary
abilities to anticipate consequences
of our action, to control our emotions,
balance and compensate for our
bad characteristics, and to prepare
for difficult ethical choices.
MORAL STRENGTH
AND
WEAKNESS
Aristotle argued
that there are
several types
of character
in regard to
the notion of
moral strength
and weakness.
CHARACTER
divine
brutish
acts
cruelly and basely
to harm others
according to
Aristotle
excels
at virtue
vicious
virtuous
prefers and
enjoys
vices
preponderance
of virtue
selfcontrolled
lacks desire
for base
pleasures
self-indulgent
morally
strong
morally
weak
controls
behavior
despite
desires
fails at
control
of desires
chooses
immediate
and base
pleasures
Persons are morally
strong, according to
Aristotle, when they
are capable
of self-control,
despite temptations
for something
they believe wrong.
The self-controlled
person,on the other hand,
seems to be someone who
has risen to a level where
they no longer feel desires
for base things or
untoward pleasures.
The virtuous person is
someone who has
mastered
most of the virtues.
The divine person is
someone who is
wholly virtuous.
The morally weak persons
are those who intend to do
the good, as they believe it,
but often fail to resist the
temptation to do it.
The self-indulgent person,
on the other hand, is one
who has the habit of choosing
immediate pleasures without
regard for their benefit.
They live in a world of immediate
gratification, and have
difficulty reaching long-term
goals; they lack self-discipline.
The vicious person is one
who enjoys vices and the
more base pleasures life
has to offer.
The brutish person is
wicked, and acts cruelly
to harm others; just to
the extent that the divine
person excels at virtue,
the brutish one excels at
vice.
Being divine seems to be
beyond human capacity; a
few can excel at virtue, some
reach the level of self-control;
many are morally strong, but
most of us are morally weak.
Because of majority of
people fall within the category
of moral weakness, and because
a morally weak person still
intends to do the good, Plato
and Aristotle focus on giving
an account of why people are
morally weak.
For Plato, moral weakness
is due to ignorance, that is,
lack of knowledge of what is
good.
If people knew what was truly
to their benefit, they would
act upon it. The good and
virtuous are to people’s benefit.
People who act with moral
weakness, therefore,
fail to know that
acting virtuously is to their
benefit.
Aristotle modifies Plato’s
thesis somewhat.
Moral weakness is due to
ignorance, but ignorance of
two sorts of things: generals
and particulars.
For example, I may not know
generally that saturated fats
are bad for my health.
Or, I may not know that this
particular food contains
saturated fats.
In either case, I may act
against my own benefit
because of ignorance of the
general or the particular, or
both.
But, secondly, besides acting
out of ignorance in this sense,
I may also act in ignorance.
Acting in ignorance is a form
of ignorance because I lose
my ability to judge any
information I might have at
my disposal.
Intoxication, for example, causes
me to act in ignorance.
Some contemporary theories,
such as that espoused by
Donald Davidson, support
Plato’s view.
He argues that when we act
against what we believe to be
the right thing to do, then we
are acting irrationally.
For example, a smoker is
acting irrationally when he
continues to smoke despite
the fact that he believes it
is the wrong thing to do.
As a result, there must be at
least two systems within the
brain, one rational, the other
irrational.
Some, such as John Heil,
argue against Davidson,
claiming that the brain is
composed of a number of
subsystems, all of which
are rational, but compete
with one another. The human
being is not divided between
rational and irrational systems.
In support of this position,
Yujian Zheng applies Ainslie’s
picoeconomic model to the
brain. He employs the notion
of the “matching law” to support
Heil’s theory.
The matching law, based on
empirical research on animals,
shows that future rewards have
a tendency to be discounted
in the presence of immediate
rewards that may be contrary
to the goals associated with
the long term ones.
Moral weakness is explained,
then, as the result of the
matching law.
The immediate pleasure and
gratification that the smoker
gets from smoking a cigarette
outweighs the more vague
and long term goal of health.
The system associated with
the long-term goals, and that
one associated with the
immediate goals, are both
rational—it is simply the case
that immediate pleasures win
out for most people who lack
the ability to control that
system.
Responsibility is determined by
three conditions:
CAUSATION
ACCOUNTABILITY
VOLUNTARINESS
CAUSATION
establishing that the
person did the
action which is the
proximate cause
of the event or outcome
determining that
the action and its ACCOUNTABILITY
outcome violated
a norm, duty, or law
that existed between
the agents in question.
VOLUNTARINESS
establishing the degree of both inner
and external control of the actions
(mens rea).
Thus, ideally, to show that someone
was responsible for an action or an
outcome, one should show that the
person did the action which caused
the event; and in doing so, violated
some norm, and, that the person
did it with some degree of
voluntariness.
CAUSATION is established
by the following factors:
Was the person’s actions the
PROXIMATE, RELEVANT and
SALIENT cause of the action?
PROXIMATE cause: that cause nearest in
the causal sequence to the event.
RELEVANT: a cause which is related to the
event in a manner that makes the event
probable.
SALIENT: the cause which is most
significant in accounting for the event;
the efficient cause.
Accountability
To be accountable or blamed, there
must be a duty, norm, or law that
obligates you in some manner to perform
or to avoid the action in question.
Being held accountable requires you
to answer before an authority whose
duty is to ensure that such norms
are adhered to.
Voluntariness is the degree of
inner and external control we
have over the events which have
caused the event in question.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTION
ARISTOTLE’S MAXIM:
We are responsible to the degree of
voluntariness in the action.
According to Aristotle, human
action can be classified in the
following manner, according to
the kind and degree of voluntariness
in it.
VOLUNTARY
INVOLUNTARY
Deliberate Impulsive
under duress
with ignorance
out of ignorance
reckless
negligent
in ignorance
Deliberate actions are those that are
intended and planned.
for example: first degree murder
Impulsive actions are those that
are intended at the moment, but
not thought out or planned.
for example: crimes of passion
acting under duress is a case where
one is compelled to do something
against your will, but because it
is necessary to avoid some terrible
harm to yourself or others.
for example, killing in self-defense
acting out of ignorance occurs when
one is not aware or lacks of knowledge
of the circumstances which cause the
event in question.
for example, a person may shoot someone
with a gun, thinking it was not loaded.
Acting out of ignorance may be due
to two kinds of behaviors:
negligent: failure to do something that
should have been done as an ordinary
rule of caution.
reckless: gross deviation from rules
of caution.
Acting in ignorance occurs when a
person is not in control of her actions.
In general it is a person who acts
without competence.
Acting in ignorance may happen
under several different circumstances:
immaturity: children are considered
less responsible for their behavior, since
their powers are not fully developed.
development: mentally disabled
may not have the capacity to fully act
voluntarily.
impairment: those who are intoxicated
or addicted act with impaired judgment.
mental illness: an organic mental illness
may cause persons to lose control of
their mental capacities.
HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?
Deliberate actions: fully
voluntary, since we both intend
and plan them out.
Impulsive actions: can be blamed for lack of
self-control, since we ordinarily have the
power to control our emotions.
HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?
Acting out of ignorance:
we can be blamed for acting
without caution.
We can be blamed for failing
to not perform certain ordinary precautions.
HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?
Acting in ignorance
responsibility in proportion to
the degree of competence
intoxication
addiction
mental disability
mental illness
immaturity
all of these have various legal standards that
are somewhat shifting.
HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY?
Acting under duress
Blame in proportion to the control
of
the circumstances which bring
about the duress.
AUTONOMY
Autonomy is generally defined as
the power of a person for
self-governance or self-mastery.
Etymologically, it comes from two
Greek words, ‘auto’, meaning self,
and ‘nomos’, meaning law.
Autonomy can be thought of
has having two principal
aspects:
SELF-MASTERY
SELF-DIRECTION
Self-mastery, in turn, has two
aspects: self-control, and selfefficacy.
AUTONOMY
SELF-DIRECTION
SELF-MASTERY
SELF-CONTROL
SELF-EFFICACY
Self-Control
SELF-CONTROL
The ability to control the positive
emotions; to forego short-term
pleasures for long-term ones;
to inhibit desires.
Self-efficacy
The ability to endure or suffer; to
overcome obstacle and hindrance;
to control negative emotions.
Self-direction
SELF-DIRECTION
The power to live by a consciously
chosen, freely adopted set of
directives and standards; the
establishment of a well-defined
set of goals.
Successful self-mastery leads
to the formation of virtuous
habits. For example, control
over one’s desire for pleasure
is traditionally called temperance,
while mastery of one’s fear, is
called bravery.
AUTONOMY
SELF-DIRECTION
SELF-MASTERY
SELF-CONTROL
SELF-EFFICACY
VIRTUE
On the other hand, establishing
self-direction is a matter of
prudence, or moral wisdom,
where one has developed a
general sense of the good life,
and knows how to deliberate
well in order to attain it.
Self-direction also involves establishing
a moral code for oneself, and understanding
the basic moral principles which underlie it.
This usually involves moral knowledge.
AUTONOMY
SELF-DIRECTION
SELF-MASTERY
SELF-CONTROL
SELF-EFFICACY
VIRTUE
WISDOM