(originally presented several years ago)
THE DETERMINED WILL: WHY THE WILL WAS NEVER FREE1
WHAT THE CONCEPT MEANS FOR SCIENCE AND MORALITY
Determinism: the position that events which happen, happen as necessary effects of causes. All instances of reality then have been caused, as opposed to being spontaneous in any absolute sense.
Causality: “The relation between cause and effect, or the act of bringing about an effect, which may be an event, a state, or an object (say, a statue). The concept of causation has long been recognized as one of fundamental philosophical importance. Hume called it ‘the cement of the universe’: causation is the relation that connects events and objects of this world in significant relationships. The concept of causation seems pervasively present in human discourse.”
-The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Article on Causation by J.K.
“Further, causation is intimately related to explanation: to ask for an explanation is, often, to ask for its cause.”
-The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Article on Causation by J.K.
“It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts subtler minds. It seems that the hundred-times-refuted theory of a ‘free will’ owes its persistence to this charm alone; again and again someone comes along who feels he is strong enough to refute it.”
-Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, p. 24-25
- To the extent that an event is described as the effect of a cause, it must logically be seen as the necessary effect of a cause. In this sense, they are necessary effects of the cause.
- When we label something as cause of an effect, we are stating that this effect follows necessarily.
- Some incomplete sets of instances can potentially produce more than one result. For instance a dog barking can cause another dog to fight this dog. Alternatively it could lead the dog’s owner to give it a treat, or cause a baby to begin crying. A dog’s barking then in each of these instances would only be a part of that cause which leads to the different effects of either: a dog fight, being given a treat, a baby crying. When we speak of a cause then it has to be in its totality (state A caused state B as opposed to certain events in state A caused certain events in state B). For instance the cause which results in this specific instance of the baby crying would include not only the dog barking, but the fact that its parents produced the baby, the proximity of the dog and the baby, et cetera.
- Determinism does not state (though it also does not state the contrary) that all effects must in turn be causes. It simply states that all effects have necessarily been produced by their specific causes.
Free Will is contrary to Determinism in the context of this discussion. It refers to a belief that effects are not necessary results of their causes, or that there could be uncaused effects.
- Free Will is usually extended specifically to human actions. This arbitrary barrier is usually due to the feeling that humans make authentic choices which are not the result of determinism, and more importantly due to religious positions.
- If Free Will is negated then it is very hard to justify notions of good and evil as real concepts.
- To the extent the good and evil are maintained as existing, it is hard to justify why a just god would allow such evil
- Determinism does not assert that we do not make choices, have genuine positions, or desires. It simply states that such choices, genuine positions, and desires are determined, or caused. “The ‘unfree will’ is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, p. 29)
- Concepts such as political freedom (democracy, et cetera) are not contrary to Determinism. Humans can have political positions, views, et cetera as discussed above.
- There is no just correlation between Determinism and tyranny, political oppression, or antisocial behaviors.
The philosopher Descartes in his conception of mind-body dualism asserted that the human mind and brain are separate. This is a notion which is utterly rejected by modern science, and which I feel is relevant to our discussion.
- Descartes sought to form a boundary between the natural world which he felt belonged to the study of science and the mind which he felt was under the proper sovereignty of the Church.
- Alienating the human mind from the natural world is a mistake as science attests. All science assumes Deterministic principles. If we could not rely on Deterministic principles, then the idea of replicating experiments or results would be nonsensical. Neuroscience very explicitly rejects Dualism, and with it the idea that the human mind is somehow apart from the natural world.
“The view that every event or state of affairs is brought about by antecedent events or states of affairs in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. Thus, the state of the world at any instant determines a unique future, and that knowledge of all the position of things and the prevailing natural forces would permit an intelligence to predict the future state of the world with absolute precision.”
-The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Article on Determinism by B.B.
“Some determinists formulate the doctrine somewhat differently: (a) every event has a sufficient cause; (b) at any given time, given the past, only one future is possible; (c) given knowledge of all antecedent conditions and all laws of nature, an agent could predict at any given time the precise subsequent history of the universe. Thus, determinists deny the existence of chance, although they concede that our ignorance of the laws or all relevant antecedent conditions makes certain events unexpected and, therefore, apparently happen ‘by chance.’”
-The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Article on Determinism by B.B.
Presently most arguments for Free Will are of a religious nature, and accept Deterministic principles outside of human actions.
- The primary basis of these arguments is: (1) God has granted Free Will to humans (2) humans have Free Will.
- This is an attempt to get around the Problem of Evil by placing responsibility for evil in the world with humans as opposed to with God.
Nonreligious Objections to Determinism: Inferences from Quantum Theory
- Those who attempt in modern times to assault Determinism from nonreligious grounds commonly draw inferences from Quantum Theory which they feel invalidates Determinism.
- In the micro-world, there are thought to be effects which do not become causes, or which terminate any causal change before reaching the threshold of the macro-world. However, Determinism does not state that Effects must become causes themselves. It only states that Effects cannot be uncaused.
- To the extent that people believe Quantum Theory presents uncaused Effects, Determinism is seriously undermined. However, I do not believe Quantum Theory does this. There may be causal relationships which we do not understand or which we cannot identify. Determinism insofar as it is a principle for interpreting the empirical world does not necessitate such knowledge.
- Those who still believe Quantum Theory undermines Determinism usually make this the basis for their defense of human Free Will, without questioning Deterministic or mechanistic principles outside of human actions. This is utterly inconsistent. If their claim regarding Quantum Theory is to be taken seriously, then no causal chains could be admitted as valid. To the extent that experiments or results could be replicated we would have to admit that we are witnessing nothing more than mere coincidence. Mathematics, and all science, including the science behind Quantum Theory would lose credibility.
- An answer to this criticism I have posed is the separation of the macro-world, and micro-world. The distinction between the macro-world and micro-world however is arbitrary. To the extent that it could be given as justified for the sake of argument, why wouldn’t the human mind be a part of the macro world?
Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer
In the discussion of great philosophers, I would like to plead humility. The following is my interpretation of Hume on Determinism and Kant and Schopenhauer on Free Will. I certainly am aware that many might disagree with me. I welcome this criticism. To the extent that I can be proven false in my interpretation, I will certainly make the necessary adjustments.
The Views of David Hume
- Hume is famous in philosophy for being a Skeptic. He was skeptical of many things, including claims that humans could have knowledge of the external world.
- Specifically, Hume doubted our ability to have any knowledge of causality outside of the imagination. However, Hume never argued for Free Will, and was a Determinist philosopher.
- I believe that the current debate on Free Will versus Determinism would sadden Hume. Maybe it would even sadden him as much as it saddens me.
- Hume’s position on causality was entirely epistemological in nature. He doubted how much humans had the capacity to know.
- His was an honest inquiry. He was not trying to justify the Abrahamic God, or anything of the like. Instead he doubted that we could have knowledge of causal relationships.
- The reason being that all we directly perceive (he was an Empiricist) are certain events. We never actually perceive cause and effect, only constant conjunctions.
- A rooster crows every morning right before the sun comes up for instance. Does this mean there is a causal connection between the rooster and the sun? Of course not. There is simply a constant conjunction.
- According to Hume all events are as far as we know only constant conjunctions. It is by our imagination that we impose a causal relationship.
- This does not mean that Hume felt causality was false. In fact he believed in causality. It simply means that Hume did not feel humans could ever prove causality.
- In any case, I must point out that the damage Hume did to causality (which Kant repaired) was damage done to determinism writ large. As opposed to Hume being seen as a defender of human Free Will (which he was NOT) Hume has been seen as someone who did violence to the foundations of science.
- The problem is that often times when we think of Determinism we are only thinking of it in relation to human actions. Determinism applies to the entire natural world however. Hume casting doubt on causality cast just as much doubt on mathematics, biology, physics, et cetera.
- Aside from religious arguments (which are bad arguments) there are no arguments which can even seek to illustrate a scenario where humans have free will yet the rest of the material world does not have free will. If all the natural world had free will, you would of course have unmitigated chaos. We do not have unmitigated chaos because the world acts in accordance with certain laws.
- Neither Hume nor Quantum Theory gives even the least comfort to the defender of human Free Will. Anyone who argues that they do must first admit Hume and Quantum Theory also destroyed the scientific method and logic (Quantum Theory is based in science, and Hume was based in logic/philosophy) which would destroy both of the arguments they are trying to use. However, if someone can get beyond that hurdle, I’ll perhaps listen.
- Hume also attacked those who argue for Free Will on a practical level. Many people say that we need Free Will for morality (which is true). Thus, if one wants a moral society… therefore Free Will (the bad grammar is intended here).
- Aside from the fact that Hume felt it was quite despicable to try to form conclusions based on what one wants to be true, Hume also pointed out that these absurdities can happen with or without Free Will. This is of course a pretty strong blow against morality.
- The reason he felt this was that if one had Free Will, that means one has the power to recreate himself. So there are no stable individuals. So to say imprison someone for murder that he committed yesterday would make no sense. Because today he is just as likely to be criminal as a girl scout. If you have Free Will, you cannot use past actions as a guide to present or future behavior. You can only do such within the context of Determinism.
The Views of Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer:
- Implicitly our discussion of Determinism thus far has been in relation entirely to the World of Representation, or phenomena.
- As humans we can only ever be aware of the phenomenal representations. We can never know the thing-in-itself, or the noumena.
- We cannot know the noumena (this is a very short and incomplete explanation, so that we do not veer too far from the main topic) because our only knowledge is mediated by our forms of intuition, time and space, and our senses. Humans cannot experience anything outside of this, so we can never known an object outside of this filter.
- There might be a semblance between phenomena and noumena. However, humans can have no knowledge of this. If there is a semblance it is not one in which we are in a position to posit.
- Our only knowledge of the noumenal world can be negative.
- Kant was acutely aware that Determinism hinders morality.
- However, Determinism applies only to the world of phenomena. To the extent that it does apply to the noumenal world, we can have no knowledge of this. However, even though dogmatic assertions are clear violations of reason, we can still have faith, or reasonable assumptions.
- Though not in anyway provable, Kant asserted that it is not impossible that our morally good actions or morally bad actions do come from our noumenal nature. That is that they are reflections of ourselves solely as opposed to any causal chain. [Note: According to Kant, Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am’ though being true, refers only to our phenomenal selves. So we literally have no knowledge of our noumenal selves. All our conscious and subconscious faculties with which we use to make decisions are entirely phenomenal. Your inner voice is phenomenal, not noumenal.]
- However, though these actions might be free on the noumenal level, insofar as we can perceive them in the phenomenal world they must be in the context of causation.
- Essentially, Kant argued that our actions might be free actions on our part on the noumenal level, and in that sense moral actions, but that on the phenomenal level, they were necessarily translated into natural, or Deterministic actions.
- It is important to understand that this position was a matter of faith rather than fact for Kant. The furthest he would go in defending this position was to state it could not be proved false (even if there it was not at all possible to prove it in a positive sense), and that the man who sought a rational moral system, it was a necessary postulate.
“Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”
- Schopenhauer believed very strongly in the Principle of Sufficient Reason (which originated with Leibniz).
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason essentially states that in order for something to exist, it must have sufficient reason to exist.
- An example of this is that, if something exists, it cannot be impossible for this same thing to exist.
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not necessarily an explicit endorsement of Determinism, however, I would argue Determinism necessarily follows the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Neuroscience, mentioned above, treats the human mind and brain as one. It seeks to explain human behavior from nonreligious sources. Hence the discipline views human behavior as Deterministic.
- If Determinism is not true, then the foundation for psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, et cetera is destroyed.
- Neuroscience has been more successful than any nonscientific approach in explaining human behavior. This suggests the validity of Determinism.
- The mind is subject to natural and biological laws. It is an evolved entity which has adapted and changed over millions of years just like any other body part or mechanism.
- Determinism would have to be invalidated for Descartes Dualism to makes any sense. Beyond this, it is hard to understand why abnormalities in the brain would have an impact on the human organism it belongs to. If Descartes is correct, then why should brain damage impair human actions if human actions are uncaused and willed independently of the physical human organism?
- “More generally, the identification and systematic description of causal relations that hold in the natural world have been claimed to be the preeminent aim of science.” (-The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Article on Causation by J.K.) In other words, science cannot go where causation is not established. What aspects of our phenomenal world would we say is permanently outside the scope of the sciences?
Evil: morally reprehensible: sinful, wicked. (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary)
What problems does Determinism pose to the idea that there are evil actions committed by humans?
- Free Will is necessary in the conception of evil. If an act is committed which could not be otherwise, we do not call it evil. For instance a rock falling on my house is unfortunate. Such an event will have very negative consequences for me, however I will not claim that the rock is evil, or morally responsible.
- If human actions are necessary then we lose the foundation with which we assign moral value to their actions. Good and Evil as moral terms lose their validity.
What problems does the existence of Evil pose to those who believe in a just God?
- Though I believe Determinism casts doubt on the idea of evil in an absolute sense, there are certainly actions which are commonly considered evil. Such actions includes needless murder, natural disasters, et cetera.
- If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he can stop this evil, or misfortune. The Philosopher Epicurus posed the question this way: “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? The he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
Epicurus’s challenge to the theist is deadly if the theist is not able to assert human Free Will as the cause of evil. Of course even if humans did have Free Will, that would not mean that God could not still intervene. This however is outside of our present discussion.
Determinism is an established scientific fact. The claims of science lose their foundation when we deny Determinism. Science has been used in various forms to cast doubt on Determinism, most notably with Quantum Theory. The inferences which must be drawn from Quantum Theory however to justify such an attack on Determinism are groundless, and would have larger implications than simply salvaging human Free Will in a secular context.
Most defenses of Free Will are religious in nature.
Schopenhauer was a Determinist philosopher. Though his primary influence, Kant did maintain a belief in a sort of human Free Will, he admitted it could not be proven in fact. In any case his concept of Free Will applied only to the noumenal. So far as his views of the phenomenal world, he was a determinist. There is nothing in Kant’s philosophy which establishes Free Will. His philosophy actually indicates the contrary.
If religion is a vestige of human thought, I ask those of a secular persuasion, by what justification then can we uphold a pillar of such religious sentiment by clinging to the concept of Free Will?
Does such a concept allow you to view science as credible, or to make sense of an uncaused world?
Is the assertion of evil simply an unfounded judgment which denies we as a society the opportunity of understanding the causes and reasons behind human behavior to the fullest extent? Or is it better to maintain a notion of moral evil which allows us to judge, and not understand, or in other words to pretend that there was not a cause?
I thank you for the opportunity to share my own views on this important matter, and look forward to your challenges. Thank you.
1 President Steven Morales of the Club of Secular Understanding deserves credit for this title.