Cameron Miranda
The question of whether we are free to break the laws is a complex one that has been explored by philosophers and legal scholars alike. It delves into the heart of the debate surrounding free will and determinism, with some arguing for soft determinism, the belief that one can freely choose to follow their predetermined path, and others advocating for incompatibilism, which rejects the possibility of free will in a deterministic world. This topic has significant implications for our understanding of responsibility, morality, and the very nature of human action.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Soft determinism | The doctrine that one freely does what one is predetermined to do |
| Compatibilism | The doctrine that soft determinism may be true |
| Weak Thesis | The thesis that one could have rendered a law false in the weak sense |
| Strong Thesis | The thesis that one could have rendered a law false in the strong sense |
| Fixity of the Laws | If it is a law of nature that p, then it is not up to us whether p is true |
| Consequence Argument | Attempts to show that if determinism is true, then our actions are not up to us |
What You'll Learn
Soft determinism and compatibilism
Soft determinism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. It is thus a form of compatibilism. The term was coined by the American philosopher William James in his essay "The Dilemma of Determinism".
Soft determinism consists of two main claims. Firstly, determinism is true—every event, including every human action, is causally determined. If you chose vanilla ice cream last night, you could not have chosen otherwise given your exact circumstances. Secondly, we act freely when we are not constrained or coerced. If my legs are tied, I am not free to run. Another way of putting this is to say that we act freely when we act on our desires.
Soft determinism contrasts with hard determinism, which asserts that determinism is true and denies that we have free will. It also contrasts with metaphysical libertarianism, which says that determinism is false since when we act freely, some part of the process leading up to the action is not predetermined.
The problem soft determinists face is that of explaining how our actions can be both predetermined but free. Most of them do this by insisting that the notion of freedom, or free will, be understood in a particular way. They reject the idea that free will must involve some strange metaphysical capacity that each of us has—the ability to initiate an event which is not itself causally determined. This libertarian concept of freedom is unintelligible, they argue, and at odds with the prevailing scientific picture. What matters to them is that we enjoy some degree of control over and responsibility for our actions. And this requirement is met if our actions flow from (are determined by) our decisions, deliberations, desires, and character.
The main objection to soft determinism is that the notion of freedom it holds falls short of what most people mean by free will. For example, if I hypnotize you and plant a desire in your mind to get yourself a drink when the clock strikes ten, and you then get up and pour yourself some water, have you acted freely? If acting freely means simply doing what you want, then yes. But most people would see your action as unfree since, in effect, you are being controlled by someone else.
Compatibilism, meanwhile, is the position that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free or have free will. Rather, it holds that determinism is true, and that all human behaviour, voluntary or involuntary, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behaviour is possible. Voluntary behaviour is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded, and the causes of voluntary behaviour are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent, such as acts of will, choices, decisions, and desires.
Jordan Belfort: Manipulative and Illegal Tactics Exposed
You may want to see also
The Weak Thesis and The Strong Thesis
The Weak Thesis, which a soft determinist might accept, is the idea that one could have rendered a law false in a weak sense. This means that while people are predetermined to act in a certain way due to past history and the laws of nature, they are still able to act otherwise. In other words, even though it may seem like our actions are constrained by predetermined laws, we still possess a degree of freedom to make choices that can influence the outcome.
On the other hand, The Strong Thesis, which is rejected by the soft determinist, states that one could have rendered a law false in a strong sense. This implies that individuals have the ability to directly break or violate the laws of nature through their actions, going beyond what is predetermined.
The Weak Thesis is a controversial position, but it is an acceptable consequence of soft determinism. It acknowledges the tension between free will and determinism, where individuals are seen as both free to make choices and constrained by causal factors. However, The Strong Thesis is a more radical claim, suggesting that we possess the power to override or contradict the fundamental laws that govern our universe.
Teachers' Strikes: Arizona's Legal Battle
You may want to see also
The Consequence Argument
David Lewis, in his essay "Are We Free to Break the Laws?", offers a rebuttal to van Inwagen's argument. Lewis agrees that it is intuitive that we cannot change the past or the laws of nature. However, he distinguishes between a standard and non-standard sense of having the ability to affect the past and the laws of nature. He argues that we need not have the ability to change the past or the laws of nature to possess the ability to act differently in a deterministic world.
Lewis suggests that our ability to act differently does not depend on our ability to make a law-breaking event occur. Instead, he proposes that we can possess the ability to act differently without causing or constituting a law-breaking event. In other words, we can have the ability to perform an action that is not identical to or caused by a law-breaking event, even if that action is preceded by a miraculous event.
Lewis further argues that we can support the idea that we have the ability to act differently by considering scenarios where our actions could have led to slightly different pasts. For example, a person may choose not to press a button at a particular time due to a lack of desire, but they still possess the ability to press it. This demonstrates our ability to act in ways that would have made the recent past slightly different.
Lewis's rebuttal to the Consequence Argument is subtle but decisive. It highlights the complexity of the debate surrounding free will, determinism, and compatibilism. While van Inwagen's argument challenges the notion of free will, Lewis's response defends the possibility of compatibilism by distinguishing between standard and non-standard senses of ability and consequence.
Hong Kong Protests: Civil Disobedience or Criminal Activity?
You may want to see also
Determinism and free will
The debate on determinism and free will revolves around whether our behavior results from forces over which we have no control or whether people can decide to act or behave in a certain way.
Determinism
The determinist approach proposes that all behavior has a cause and is thus predictable. Free will is an illusion, and our behavior is governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control.
External Determinism
External (environmental) determinism sees the cause of behavior as being outside the individual, such as parental influence, the media, or school. Behaviorism and social learning theory are examples of approaches that adopt this position.
Internal Determinism
The other main supporters of determinism are those who adopt a biological perspective. For them, it is internal, not external, forces that are the determining factor. According to sociobiology, evolution governs the behavior of a species and the genetic inheritance of each individual within it.
Free Will
Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior. In other words, we are self-determined.
Soft Determinism
Soft determinism represents a middle ground, suggesting that people do have a choice, but that choice is constrained by external or internal factors.
Implications of Determinism and Free Will
A problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society's ideas of responsibility and self-control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations.
On the other hand, psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and dignity and devalues human behavior.
Mental Illnesses and Free Will
Mental illnesses appear to undermine the concept of free will. For example, individuals with OCD lose control of their thoughts and actions, and people with depression lose control over their emotions.
A pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate when studying human behavior. Most psychologists use the concept of soft determinism to express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.
When is Breaking the Law Justified?
You may want to see also
Fixity of the Laws
The 'Fixity of the Laws' (FOL) is a central premise of the Consequence Argument, which attempts to show that if determinism is true, then our actions are not up to us. FOL assumes that if something is a law of nature, then the truth of the relevant proposition is not up to us. In other words, if it is a law of nature that p, then it is not up to us whether p is true.
The Consequence Argument claims that if determinism is true, then our actions are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the distant past. However, it is not up to us what happened before we were born, nor is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things, including our present actions, are not up to us.
Humean compatibilists reject FOL by arguing that if Humeanism about laws is true, then agents in a deterministic world can do otherwise than they are lawfully determined to do because of the distinctive nature of Humean laws. They maintain that deterministic laws of nature are 'up to us' and that we have the ability to do something that suffices to make the relevant proposition false.
In summary, the Fixity of the Laws is a key assumption in the debate surrounding free will, determinism, and the nature of laws. Humean compatibilists challenge this assumption by arguing that the nature of Humean laws allows for the possibility of doing otherwise, even in a deterministic world.
Teachers Confiscating Phones: Breaking the Law?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Soft determinism implies that people can act in ways that break the laws of nature. It is the belief that one can act freely while being predetermined to do so. Compatibilism is the belief that soft determinism may be true.
The Weak Thesis is the belief that one could have rendered a law false in a weak sense, which a soft determinist might accept.
The Strong Thesis is the belief that one could have rendered a law false in a strong sense, which a soft determinist would reject.
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible. It is the idea that one can act freely even if their actions are predetermined by past events and the laws of nature.
Humean compatibilism is the belief that if Humeanism is true, then determinism and free will are compatible. It argues that agents in a deterministic world can act differently than what they are lawfully determined to do due to the nature of Humean laws.
