Question:

Compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these positions? Which one do you believe is the most likely to be correct? Why?

1. Paper should be 6-7 pages in length when double-spaced and using a 12 point font.
   2. Include at least four sources.
   3. DO NOT cite any online reference encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, Britannica, or Encarta.
   4. Your sources should consist of scholarly journal articles ONLY.
   5. All sources must be cited (must have an end note or a foot note) and the source included in a bibliography. The format of the citations and bibliography must be of a nationally accepted formatting system such as MLA or APA.

Answer:

Title: Determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism

The concepts of determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism are of great relevance in philosophy. In all of them, focus is on the issue of freedom. For a person to claim to enjoy freedom, he or she should be able to do whatever he desires as well as to have the capability to do so. For many centuries, philosophers have been addressing the question of whether or not human beings really have free will. This philosophical investigation has led to the emergence of three schools of thought: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism.

A determinist would argue that a criminal engages in crime because his or her environment and genetic inheritance predetermine his life as a criminal. In contrast, proponents of libertarianism argue that a criminal must be held accountable for all his actions simply because he has free will. Supporters of compatibilism argue that the criminal was environmentally and genetically disposed towards life in crime, although he or she is accountable for deciding to commit specific crimes.  Sometimes the term “hard determinism” is used in reference to the theory of determinism. This is simply because of the need to differentiate it from “soft determinism” which is the other name for compatibilism. This paper discusses the similarities and differences among these schools of thought. It also highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each philosophical position. In the conclusion section, I identify the school of thought that I think is most likely to be correct.

Determinism is based on the view that choices are of no relevance to reality because a fated design is already in place for every human being. In contrast, supporters of libertarianism argue that humans are responsible for making choices and guiding themselves through the process of decision making. This means that the future of every human being is in his hands. This is unlike in the case of determinism where fate is thought to play a critical role in the life of every person.

One of the weaknesses of determinism is that it seems to be contradictory to ordinary experiences. On the other hand, the libertarianism theory tends to disregard elements of event-causation. These weaknesses inspired Walter Stace, a renowned philosopher, to propose an alternative theory of philosophy known as  compatibilism (Ogletree & Oberle, 2008). Stace seemed to amalgamate the theses provided in determinism and libertarianism in coming up with the new theory (Ogletree& Oberle, 2008). In this undertaking, Stace’s wanted to present a practical alternative to the efforts by philosophers to understand the issue of human freedom (Ogletree & Oberle, 2008).

The concept of determinism is an ancient one, although efforts to clarify its meaning and its effect through mathematical analysis started during the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with the explanatory ambitions exhibited in our understanding of physical sciences. However, this is only one of the two dimensions through which this concept is normally defined. The other dimensions relates to our views relating to human free action. In both dimensions, disagreements normally arise regarding the truthfulness of determinism. By extension, philosophers are yet to agree on whether the truth or falsity of determinism can be ascertained. Roughly speaking, determinism is based on the idea that every event that occurs at any given time is necessitated by antecedent conditions and events that work together with laws of nature.

Traditionally, the definitions used to define determinism have been imprecise. Nevertheless, determinists assert that free will and freedom are simply illusions resorted to for purposes of convenience. Determinists adopt a causal approach to the sources of motivation for various thoughts and actions, which are taken to be predictable. This means that determinism adopts an idealistic view of reality. On this basis, it is evident that one of the main weaknesses of determinism is that it adopts a one-dimensional approach (Balaguer, 2009). This one-dimensional approach is certainly constrained by distinct single outcomes and causality (Balaguer, 2009).

In contrast, proponents of libertarianism hold the view that free will indeed does exist. The reason given is that it is illogical for one to not possess it (Watson, 1999). Libertarian philosophers point out that humans make simple as well as complex choices every passing day. These choices guide them towards the direction they want to go. According to libertarians, human beings do not simply operate like machines; they do not consider it absurd that some of their actions may not have causes (Watson, 1999). In essence, the libertarianism is the exact opposite of determinism.

For many libertarians, to deny free will is rudimentary because it is one of the main prerequisites for self-awareness (Watson, 1999). The main weakness of this approach, however, is that some events no doubt happen naturally. Humans have no control over events such as earthquakes, tornados, mudslides, and tsunamis, which tend to cause massive loss of life and destruction of property. Moreover, in many cases, these events play a critical role in the deliberation process that ultimately leads to decision-making.

Although many philosophers feel the need for a dichotomy between free will and determinism, supporters of compatibilism argue that free will can “co-exist” with determinism. Compatibilism is based on the view that human behavior is determined by some forces that are beyond the control of the individual. Some of these metaphysical and physical forces exist simply because they are an integral component of the individual’s personality. Like in determinism, predetermined actions are thought to impose constraints on free will. However, the difference is that in compatibilism, those constraints are regarded as extremely important because therein lies the gift of choice. As long as humans have the ability to make some choices in life, they are morally accountable for the actions that follow from those choices.

In compatibilism, a distinction is normally made between free and “unfree” acts (Vihvelin, 2000). Free acts are those caused by motives, desires or simply by the mind of the human being (Vihvelin, 2000). In contrast, “unfree” acts arise whenever there are physical conditions or forces outside the human (Vihvelin, 2000). In compatibilism, one should not be given praise or punished for actions that he or she undertook as an outright consequence of force.

The strengths of compatibilism are evident in that many countries use this theory as a basis for their justice systems. A case in point is that of the US system. In the US, people are penalized for undertaking illegal actions that they perpetuated intentionally. At the same time, they are glorified for undertaking moral deeds. American courts examine all unlawful actions committed to determine whether the accused person was acting out of his environmental circumstances or on his own free will.

Compatibilism also provides for situations relating to things that happen before a person is born. Although human beings have no control over these events, they can still make decisions that would enable them end up with desirable outcomes. In fact, this explanation is one of the main strengths of compatibilism. The same case applies in the case of events caused by the laws of nature. In this way, the need for the fusion of determinism and free will is demonstrated. Determinism is not desirable because it eliminates the existence of moral responsibility. This is simply because all human actions would be unpredictable and devoid of all meaning. On the other hand, it is not possible for people to live without free will. This is because choices and options  would be unessential to reality and in some cases even superfluous.

Compatibilism seems like a better theory than determinism and libertarianism. Not only does it provide more viable solutions to the question of freedom, it also provides a better definitive analysis. The definitions that have traditionally been provided for determinism have been imprecise. This has tended to create difficulties whenever efforts are made to put the concept in a theoretical context. Moreover, major errors have sometimes arisen in efforts to provide a single, coherent definition of determinism.

However, there is consensus that an all-encompassing definition must point out to impact of natural law as the platform on which the world is governed. According to such a definition, the way things are at any given time depends on natural. Similarly, the way things turn out thereafter is also influenced by natural law. However, such a definition is loose and faces the risk of misinterpretation. To reduce this risk, it is imperative for the various terms used in the definition to be investigated and explained. This weakness needs to be addressed for the theory of determinism to be clearly understood.

By adopting the theory of compatibilism, philosophers are able to address the contentious question of free will. The contention arises particularly within the realm of metaphysics. Indeed, by being compatible with both determinism and libertarianism, compatibilism seems like a better proposition in efforts to understand the question of freedom among human beings. However, the greatest problem with compatibilism is that it is not a reasonable proposition. By accepting the arguments raised in determinism, proponents of compatibilism are in effect saying that the history of the universe will always remain fixed and nothing can happen in any other way than it does. This is simply because all the things that take place are made possible by what has already happened in the past.

On the other hand, by embracing the notion of libertarianism, compatibilism becomes acceptable to those who hold the view that free will exists. This is a reflection of the reality of human life, whereby everyone is at liberty to choose from a number of options whenever the need to perform a specific action arises. Since nothing hinders a person from doing what he or she chooses to do, it may seem natural to point out that one acts entirely freely whenever he or she does (or tries to do) what he or she has decided to do. Of course there are exceptions where one is constrained by circumstances in taking certain actions. For example, when a plane is hijacked, the free will of the pilot is constrained by the circumstances in which he finds himself or herself. The theory of compatibilism succeeds in accommodating such circumstances. For these reasons, I believe that the theory that is most likely to be correct is compatibilism.

 

References

Balaguer, M. (2009). Why there are no good arguments for any interesting version of determinism. Synthese, 168(1), 1–21.

Ogletree, S. & Oberle, C. (2008). The Nature, Common Usage, and Implications  of Free Will and Determinism. Behavior and Philosophy, 36(4), 97-111.

Vihvelin, K. (2000). Libertarian Compatibilism. Noûs, 34(14), 139–166.

Watson, G. (1999). Soft Libertarianism and Hard Compatibilism. The Journal of Ethics, 3(4), pp. 353-368.