Hard Determinism vs. Free-Will

When one achieves that certain level of sensitivity to the function and natural process of existence, usually acquired through profound contemplation, one arrives at an understanding of the necessary conditions of relations between the self and the surrounding environment, and through acknowledgment of this, realizes all life in a wholeness of being, and its journey as a continuum. When the individual ego is checked and the levels of fear and desire are balanced within the mind in accordance with rational clarity, the observance of and reflection on our place in this world suggests that, when reasonably comparing universal design and order with common experience, there must be some purpose to this system. We see nothing in the way of coincidence in our ordinary experience that even hints at the condition and design of life having been the result of some outrageous accident, that just happened to meet the exact requirements for life to exist as it does. Once this has been recognized, the question of wether or not we operate in complete, or perhaps not entirely complete, freedom of action and thought, or if there is some higher force dictating the way of life, relegating all thought and action as performing some role in an already scripted play. Are we free to choose our own paths in life, to make our own decisions, and with this freedom, carry the burden of responsibility and accountability, or are our lives determined, leaving us to live as machines free from individual choice, and accordingly, free from all responsibility?

Hard determinism is a position stating that there is no freedom of will in humans. The scientific version of determinism argues that every event must have a sufficient cause, and that, given the past, there can only exist one possible future. The scientific determinist believes that if we are provided with the knowledge of the entirety of history and universal laws, it is possible for one to forecast the history of the universe. This position, of course, rules out all possibility of chance. Chance, for the scientific determinist, is really unforeseen events resulting from ignorance of natural laws and conditions. There can be only one possible history of the world, or as the determinist would say, a universal causal law. This view sees all actions or choices as inevitable products of factors of the past, even if there has been concentrated deliberation on possible options. In the determinist view, there are no real alternatives, but only one possible outcome in all situations, and our ideas that through deliberation we have the capacity to makes choices is but an illusion, as we will always act in accordance with what we are determined to do.

The determinist position removes responsibility from the agent, since there is no real choice in actions. The position of libertarianism holds that humans possess freedom of will, and consequently, are responsible for all actions committed. The libertarian position makes a distinction between actions being determined and actions being influenced by circumstances and environmental effects. The determinist approach suggests that we arrive at our beliefs as a result of external forces, but the libertarian cannot accept this when taking into consideration that humans have the capacity for reasoning, and this distinctive quality is what truly leads to human actions and beliefs. The libertarian finds it equally unacceptable to eliminate responsibility from the agent. If we are not free, then we cannot be held accountable for our actions. How would this apply in the realm of morality? Our legal systems seem to be predicated on the assumption that people have a choice in actions, as it would seem slightly absurd to punish someone for an act that they were determined to commit. The libertarian responds to this issue as a confusion in the determinist position between methodological rule and metaphysical conclusions. Our experiences, according to libertarianism, do not reflect the idea of determinism, thus it seems to contradict what experience reveals.

There are two aspects that provide support for the libertarian view, namely introspection and deliberation. Introspection is our ability to observe ourselves through a process of reflection, or looking within the self. This is the experience, and the evidence, of having the capacity to make decisions, and a quality that appears to have been completely discarded by the hard determinist. The other aspect that lends support to the libertarian approach to free will is the process of deliberation, which is viewed as an illusory activity that gives the agent the false impression of being able to decide something. The libertarian idea of deliberation is one of control through practice and effort, suggesting that we are not programmed like machines to always function in a certain manner regardless of circumstantial factors or environmental conditions. Deliberation is an evaluation of possible options, and a calculation of consequences, occurring before making a particular decision on some matter. These two aspects, introspection and deliberation, provide a kind of abstract evidence against the determinist that human behavior is not universally inevitable. It is abstract in that it is not something tangible or constructed of measurable data, but rather a quality common within the experience of being human realized intuitively.

When attempting to define what it means to be "free", we discover two essential elements that conjoin to constitute this state. First, there must be an absence of external determination,, or any other sort of determination. It is clear that one cannot achieve the state of being wholly free under the influence of any manner of determination. If there is any force in the way of this, a force that significantly limits our choices in a situation, or manipulates our understanding of a situation, true personal freedom cannot exist. There must be an autonomous condition in the agent, an ability to make a self-determined choice, in a state of freedom. This brings us to the second element required for the state of freedom, and that is the case of action or choice being one’s own, entirely. A free individual must be able to say that he/she acts and chooses according to the wishes and needs of their own volition. Without these two primary elements, we cannot establish that we are in a state of freedom of the will.

When evaluating these two arguments, free-will, and determinism, it appears to be the case that there cannot be any kind of undeniable proof in favor of either position. This is because, in the case of such metaphysical questions, the truth seems to be in correspondence with one’s own experience or in realms of the abstract and ethereal. Logical reasoning can sufficiently be provided in support of both sides, but the mechanical intricacy of logical reasoning does not seem sufficient for establishing validity in a matter such as this. The arguments will simply go back and forth, with each side formulating better and better arguments than the other, leading to no real establishment of clarity in the way of truth, and that is the way towards skepticism. In order to find the truth in a matter such as this, one must have a sensitivity to the motion of life. Only through careful observation of experience, and then reflection upon what has been observed, can one really get at the heart of this. The flow of life within its structure, the surrounding environment and the condition of existence, have much to reveal that is of a a more subtle yet more convincing substance than any cleverly formulated logical argument.

But, of course, even if we rely on this sensitivity of experience and motion of life, there will continue to be the debate. There will surely be just as many who say that the flow of life reveals determination as those who say it reveals the opposite. Especially in the case of the determinist, there does not appear to be much that can sway the position, as the stance itself allows for every action to be explained in such a simple manner. But one must ask the question of why we have been given this capacity for introspection and deliberation if all actions and choices are determined. What is the purpose of these abilities, if their processes are simply an illusory operation? Indeed, what is the purpose of existence if every event and action is determined to be a certain way? The design of the world and the motion of life seems to suggest that there is a higher purpose to life than simply living out some sequence of events that are always determined to end in a specific result.

In exploration of these questions, it is paramount to first arrive at a central point, the driving source of all that exists. There is a certain kind of striving to be that is evident in all beings, increasing in levels of determination from the lowest life forms to the highest. This striving can be perceived as the principle of existence, a constant "becoming" through conscious awareness, persistent and eternal in all things. Arthur Schopenhauer called this the Will, and through this will to live, there arises much struggle and torment in the world. And in such a world, the basis of morality becomes pity for others, as we understand the suffering condition of life through the awareness of our own strife. This kind of sympathy promotes actions of a good nature, and if one can demonstrate this sympathy, he must surely be free. His Will must be free; free, that is, to deny his own will. It is through this process of denial of the will, that man’s freedom can be demonstrated. If he denies anything, and indeed, his very own principle of existence, he must possess freedom. The suppression of the will, which Schopenhauer sees as the root of all horror and suffering in the world, leads the way towards the state of peace, because he restrains the selfishness manifest through his will, and wills not to will.

Keeping in line with Schopenhauer’s philosophy, the only area of life that man has no freedom is found within his character, or what he is at his core. The character is unalterable, and man is powerless to change who he is. He may pretend to be someone other than he truly is, but this can never last, and he will always come back to the reality of what he is, within the heart of his being. Outside of this condition, man has the freedom to choose what he wishes in life, but he must always act in accordance with his very nature. Indeed, he cannot do otherwise. He is always determined to act in accordance with what he is, what defines his character. In this view, a man is must always necessarily act in accordance with his nature and character, having no freedom to do otherwise, even if he performs under the impression or illusion that he is going against this. He has freedom to choose his actions, but always within the confines of the defining elements of his nature, on an individual level (his personal character), and on the universal level of the nature of humanity.

Because the determinist position abandons notions of responsibility and accountability, it does not seem plausible to base a society upon its foundation. Such a society would result in a level of chaos that would make it impossible to establish any sensible order or justice. When charged with a crime, an individual would just have to say that he was determined to behave in such a way, and how could he rightly be punished for an act he was determined to perform? He had no choice in the matter, and so he cannot be justly convicted. In recognition of this, our laws coincide with the idea that humans are free to choose their own actions, and therefore, must be held accountable. The determinist, in response to this condition, even though we are not free and thus not responsible, we must base a society’s rules and laws as if it were the case that we were free, so as to maintain some kind of order and justice. If not this, then the determinist believes that society should be drastically altered to accommodate the condition of determined action.

It is easy to side with the libertarian position, especially when taking into account the way in which our society functions in accord with it. Most people like to think of themselves as free, as this grants them the notion of some element of control over the course of their lives. And to a degree it may be beneficial for people to hold such views, even though on the whole, it is not exactly the case in reality. This is because the individual is bound to the defining characteristics of his/her being, and will always act in accordance with those characteristics. In this way, there is a lack of freedom, as far as owning the capacity to act differently than one’s own character, as this would involve the individual becoming someone else, and that is impossible. We are who we are, and must always act in accordance with the elements that make up our individual selves. Add to this the constancy and demanding nature of chance and circumstance, which always severely limits our choices in a particular situation, and sometimes even leaves but one option, and most often an option that we are reluctant or even horrified to face, and our freedom seems even more limited.

Having taken into account both sides of the debate, it appears that neither can be said to be the case. The idea of determinism contradicts the full range of abilities of the human mind, and suggests that our observations and experiences are deceptive and illusory. In such a view, all meaning and higher purpose to life is washed away, as every action or thought becomes a mechanical process of simply following a program, as a computer. On the other hand, the libertarian view grants humans too much freedom, forsaking the necessary restrictions placed upon individual freedom in regards to inner character and the role of circumstance. The most sensible position then, is to say that we are free in as far as our defining character allows us to be, and under the limitations imposed on our choices by the hands of chance. We are free, that is, in so far as we are determined to act in accordance with who we are and the circumstances of existence.

Allen Donaldson 12/8/06