Free will and Determinism

• Free will is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
• There are different viewpoints to the concept of free will.
• John locke uses an analogy to explain his viewpoint of free will.
• A man is aslpee and wakes up in a room. He thinks about leaving the rooom but decides to remain. Unkown to him the room was locked and if he attempted to leave, he wouldnt of been able to do so.
• The man did not stay in the room freely because there were factors that limited his freedom such as the room being locked so the message of this analogy is that free will is an illusion as there are certian things that prevent us from being free.

• All determinists view free will as an illusion.
• If a man has a heart attack whilst driving and kills soemoen he is not responsbile for that action.
• However, if the man forgot to take his medidication and then had the heart attack whilst driving hen he is more responsible for the action. 
• Therefore, freedom becomes a condtition of moral responsibility.
• For determinists, humans cannot be held morally responsible for their actions meaning they should not recieve rewatd or punishment.
• Determinism follows the concept that there are pre determining factors in our life that prevwnt us from being free and prevent us from having moral responsibility. 
• These are psycological, scientific and theological.

• Theological determinism is the view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.
• John Feinberg, for example, describes his theological determinist position as that view that “God’s decree covers and controls all things”
• Strong theological determinism is based on the concept of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity"
• Weak theological determinism, is based on the concept of divine foreknowledge – "because God's omniscience is perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen
• Aquinas views God as seeing the results of our future free choices but sees them tireelsssly so does not cause them. TD is of no interest of someone who does not follow a God.

• Scientific determinism is a philosophical perspective that defines the results of science and scientific behavior. Scientific determinism means that current events are the results of science, meaning the biological and environmental realities are causal. There are no random causes or free will.
• All physcial beings are determineds by prior causes that operate back to the big bang.
• the mind can be examined and also has no free will and everyhting that happens can be explained and predicted through scientific principles and cause and effect relationships. 

• Psycologciasl determinism is the view that all behaviour is the result of genetic and environmental conditions and all humna actions are conditioned by the good or bad consequences of previous decisions.
• BF skinner also mentions how we seek to avoid behaviour with bad consequences and repeat behaviour with good cosnequences.
• Our actions are influenced by internal forces rather than being completely free.

• The most basic premise for libertarianism is that all people should be held morally responsible for their actions becaude all humans have metaphyscial freedom. 
• Metaphyscial freedom is the power of the self to choose genuine alternatives in a given situation.
• Determinists view we ave no metaphyscial freedom and belive emore in cicumstancial freedom where there are barriers to freedom such as our upbringing and laws from a country restricting people from doing certain things.
• For libertarians: In any given moral dilemmma a person who chose the wrong actions had the choice to behave in another way so people who behave wrongly should be punished such as prison or fines.
• By behaving in the right way you had the free choice to behave in the correct way and should be rewarded. 

• Kant was a libertarian. He created deontoligical thought of ethics based on moral rules and standards not religion. 
• Kant created laws on waht people ought to do telling them its their moral duty. Ought implies can and by knowing what we should do shows that we are morally free to choose this action. 
• Kant argued the laws of a country are important in helping people be free and to behave rationally. This is known as poitical freedom. 
• Breaking the law limits other peoples freedom.
• Punishment is there for retribution holding peole morally responsible for their actions and punishing them for breaking the law.
• Kants argument may be flawed as it doesnt take inot account people who dont have metaphyscial freedom who cant choose between the good and the bad such as people with disability. 

• Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible 
• They accept parts of a life are determined like upbringing which has an effect on how people see the world and their actions within it. 
• However, they also believe that people have the free choice within the life that has been determined for them so there are times when people are deserving for their wrong actions.
• An example of compatibilism is the UK law. A person stealing food becase they are in poverty is viewed by compatibilists that there are certain factors qhich have led the perosn to do this act . 
• An upbringing where following the law is not common lead people to not undertsand the morality of their action so the actions they have witnessed creates a pattern for them and it cannot be met in any other way other than stealing. 
• Cpmatibilists would view a person should be judegd less harshly depdning on the situation they are in and they should have an opportunity to change their behaviour. 
• Punishment should be focused on rehabilitation rather than retribution put forward by Kant.

• Contoversy of freedom and determinism- Philosophers have not defined their terms correctly so the dispute over freedom and determinsim has been going on for thousands of years. Hume gives his own definition of necessity.
• Casual determinism- The kind of necessity found in casual determinism is not logical necessity. Logical necsessity is the kind found in maths where 2+2=4 is logically correct. We have got inot the habit of beleving laws of nature follow this necessity but what we really see in nature is constant conjunction.
• Constant conjunction- when we look in nature A is constantly by B. When A (water) is heated to 100 degrees we always find B (the water boils) We have to assume that A is always going to be accompanied by B. This kind of conjuncion is not logically necessary ans therefore we cannot talk about necessary laws of cause and effect in nature.

• Constant Conjunction- If you think about people you know,  you would agree that their natures are very consistent. Peoples principles and motives are as constant as wind , rain and cloud in the weather.
• People in all societies depend on eachother to the extent that there is hardly anything we do that is done without reference to others. 
• Hume points out anybody that makes or grows something to sell, in order to feed himself and his family, will sell at a reasonable price and anybody who cheatsh him he would expect the police to help him.
• Liberty and Necessity are compatible- Hume sees physcial events and human wishes as one kind operation. The actions of the will and natural causes form one linked chain. There is a regularity between between huamn choices and human actions so human actions stems from human choices and that is free will. 

• makes society more compassionate= leading to more ethical choices being made
•  brings about awareness of mental health issues & some ppl's social background eg Leob and Leopold.
• helps the world to be more understandable and predictable
• Determinism is very scientific in this sense that it tries to highlight certain factors have an influence. This makes this debate more acceptable in society with its explanations and scientific basis.

• Does not allow for personal responsibility= everything caused by prior events in cause & effect world
• We cannot make truly free ethical choices because out choices are determined by prior causations= we do not choose what we do
• In the legal system it is not possible as offenders are held accountable
• Unfalsifiable - believes that causes will exist within behaviour , this is impossible to test

• Allows for moral responsibility= our choices are down to our volition and what we choose to do by using our free will
• We are able to make causally undetermined choices
• Able to make ethical choices with out inner moral self= making us responsible for our actions.
• With libertarianism, there is minimum violence and lower crime rates since the government heavily invests in police, military, and the judicial system to fulfill its mandate of protecting citizens from the harm of others
• Libertarianism gives people the freedom to believe in a God-given soul that allows for freedom.

• Does not consider internal & external influences enough that my affect our ability to make ethical choices freely.
• Determinsim does consider these influe=ences such as being schizophrenic or a psycopath.
•  People can make wrong decisions since they are not influenced by laws, values, emotions, beliefs, and experiences.
• Free will does not promote moral responsibility for individuals since they make decisions that deem fit for themselves. An individual’s upbringing mostly influences the decisions in society, parents, and guardians to decide what is morally right and wrong. The factors prevent an individual from being truly free

• Supports the christian view that humans are responsible for their own action
• Recognises that indivuduals will still have a role to play in casuation since we are living in a cycle of cause and effect that makes us somewhat determined. 
• Allows for punishment and reward still.

Weaknesses

• Hard determinists criticise them for failing to realise the extent to which freedom is limited
• Difficult to draw a line on what is and isnt a determining factor on our choices
• Is it determinism if it allows freedom?