Freedom and Human Action

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 III: Frankfurt

Harry Frankfurt is a compatibilist, meaning that he believes free will and determinism are compatible philosophical concepts. Like determinists, Frankfurt believes that there are certain things over which human beings have no control. Some of those things are, of course, external events. For example, I had no control over the fact that three other professors assigned essays due the same day as my philosophy essay. Other things over which human beings have no control are our desires and to some extent, our actions which are based on those desires. However, Frankfurt believes that some, but not all, of our actions are determined. Human beings can and often do act freely. Frankfurt would therefore say that I acted freely when I turned down my friend's offer to cheat without getting caught. I had the first order desire (get a good grade easily), and the second order desire (take that paper!).

Frankfurt would also say that I do deserve some praise for my action because I resisted temptation. As the neuroscientist Ramachandran would have put it, "I may not have free will, but I do have free won't'!" The case of the Potential Cheater also reflects the scientific experiments on free will that were conducted by Libet. Libet concluded, "This kind of role for free will is…in accord with religious and ethical strictures. These commonly advocate that you 'control yourself'. Most of the Ten Commandments are 'do not' orders," (p. 7). Therefore, the desire or temptation to cheat is a deterministic phenomenon. I cannot control the fact that I am hard-wired to want to cheat. However, I can control the actions that I make. In this case, I acted in accordance with the moral laws that I wish to emulate.

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.