Free will and determinism in d'Holbach and Frankfurt

Free Will

A friend of mine has just offered to give me a well-written paper that he wrote for a philosophy class. It just so happens that the paper topic is just like the one I have been assigned in my philosophy class. His paper got an "A," and I know that he has not sold this paper or posted it on his blog. The chances of my being caught, therefore, are nil. Moreover, I am very busy and because I am distracted, it is unlikely I will do a very good job on my philosophy paper. If I turn my friend's paper in as my own, I will get a good grade without doing much work. I still took the class; I am still learning. This would just alleviate my stress.

However, after some deliberation I decide that I will write my own paper. I was tempted, but I resisted. The reason for my decision is not based on fear (I knew there was no way I would get caught because my friend goes to a different school). I just want to do what is right, because I believe in karma. I want to do good, and to be an ethical person. Therefore, I resist temptation.

In this paper, which I did write myself, I will outline the views of d'Holbach and Frankfurt. I will hopefully show what each of these two philosophers would have said about my "Potential Cheater" situation. The framework for viewing the Potential Cheater is therefore not based on ethics, so much as it is based on the nature of determinism vs. free will.

After outlining d'Holbach's and Frankfurt's respective views on free will vs. determinism, I will provide an evaluation of their respective reasoning. In particular, I will argue that Frankfurt's view is more plausible than d'Holbach's view because d'Holbach's hard determinism is too restrictive. Hard determinism and d'Holbach's view does not accurately reflect the complexity of the human experience. This would be my main objection to hard determinism, regardless of how it applies to the Potential Cheater case.

I will also provide a rebuttal, or a response to my evaluation. Imagining that I am d'Holbach, I will state my defense. While acknowledging that d'Holbach has a case, I will say that his point-of-view only has an internal logic, which cannot be applied to the real world. For this reason, d'Holbach's view does not succeed in getting around my main objection to hard determinism.

Part II: d'Holbach

Baron d'Holbach was a hard determinist, meaning he completely disavowed the potential for human beings to have any free will in any situation. D'Holbach believed absolutely and immutably in a deterministic universe. The universe and the laws of nature, which are immutable, have predetermined all of my thoughts, emotions, and actions. D'Holbach would argue that I was pre-wired somehow to resist temptation to cheat. The philosopher would also have argued that my friend's offer was also written in the stars, and that he was predetermined to make the offer to me. Every variable of the Potential Cheater situation, from the school that I attend and the classes that I take, are all predetermined. My instincts, inclinations, and interests are all predetermined, and I am just acting everything out according to a grand plan. When I resisted temptation to use my friend's paper in philosophy class, I was not acting as I thought out of moral goodness. I deserve no praise for my actions, because I did not actually do anything. I simply followed my instinct. What I did by resisting the cheating is no different than an alligator suddenly chomping down on a baby.

Part IV: Evaluation

The one main objection I have with d'Holbach's hard determinism is that it is too simple and narrow a view of the human experience. In fact, d "Holbach's view offers a narrow, restrictive, and unrealistic picture of the way the universe works. D "Holbach devised his theories a few centuries before Einstein and quantum physics existed. If he had developed his philosophy today, he would see that physicists have conceptualized a universe in which chaos is the reigning order. There are simply too many variables impacting life, and the human experience, for there to be a predetermined plan for everything. Hard determinism is like taking the easy way out. Like religion, hard determinism tries to give black-and-white answers to a world that is composed of many shades of gray.

In response d'Holbach would argue that I cannot actually prove that he is wrong. If I had cheated, then I would have been predetermined to do so. What we perceive of as a chaotic and complex universe is actually one that is simple. Whether or not we believe in a Creator God, d'Holbach would say that the laws of nature still imply a pattern and order to all things.

D'Holbach's response is actually a sound and sensible one. Even though chaos theory and the complexity of human behavior seem like plausible realities, perhaps our brains are hard-wired to believe that we have free will. It is actually possible that everything that is going to happen in my life has already been written, and I am just playing it out. Moroever, d'Holbach's response to my evaluation raises an important question about the nature of time. I have experienced deja vu before. Is deja vu simply proof that we live in a deterministic universe? The deja vu might be a "memory" that what I am doing now was predetermined in the past. However tempting it might be to entertain 'd'Holbach's idea, it seems implausible on many levels but that could just be that I do not like the feeling of being completely unable to control anything that happens to me. d'Holbach's view makes all of us passive creatures.