Philosophy of free will

Philosophy - Free Will

Throughout history a constant issue that has been consistently grappled with is: the issue of determinism. Simply put, determinism is when the various events or actions that are occurring in someone's life are the reflection of the overall state of affairs within society. This is because various norms and laws will regulate the overall course of actions of the citizens, by guiding them in the most socially / morally acceptable behavior. ("Determinism," 2010) Yet, this idea is being constantly wrestled with by optimists and pessimists. Where, the optimists feel the various rules that are created by society help to set a moral standard that everyone will follow. As a result, their overall actions will be in line with various morals and principals that are reflected in these various laws / rules. Therefore, the various actions that individual engages in is: a reflection of these attitudes on morals and principals. While the pessimists will argue that if this was the case, then there would be no need for any kind of punishment for those who break the different rules. As everyone could follow the various laws / regulations to be within the most morally correct standards. This has caused many of the critics to claim that the ideas of determinism are inaccurate, as the various attitudes, morals and behavior are shaped by the individual's experience. To fully understand the views of determinism requires examining the various arguments presented by both sides. This will provide the greatest insights as to if determinism is effective in helping to guide individuals as to most morally correct behavior.

Optimists v. Pessimists

The optimists will argue that the various laws / rules that are created by society are effective at shaping morals and attitudes. This is because the use of various punishments will serve as an effective deterrent in discouraging inappropriate behavior. Where, the negative perceptions of those who violate these rules will serve as a way of encouraging people to stay within the different guidelines. Then, when you add the element of punishment, this only underscores how everyone will know how they should be consistently acting, in accordance to these widely accepted morals and norms. The main reasoning behind this kind of thinking is that as different people interact within society, these various laws will guide everyone in the most appropriate way that we should be dealing with one another. However, the pessimists will argue that the ideas of determinism are irrelevant because it does not account for free will. This is when someone will determine for themselves, what is the most morally correct action, based upon their personal experiences and influences. According to the pessimists, such actions only encourage everyone to act within the prescribed methods that society thinks is best. At which point, people will begin to disregard some of the various rules or regulations. This is because they will use free will to determine what is best for them. (Strawson, n.d.)

Yet, when you look at the overall arguments that are presented by both the optimists and pessimists, it clear that both side make good points. As far the optimists are concerned, they make an outstanding point, in that the various laws / regulations do serve as a guide for people to determine the most appropriate course of action. Where, they provide a general framework for everyone. Once you move beyond these generalizations, this kind of thinking has a major flaw, special considerations. This is when someone will engage in actions that are in violation of the various laws / regulations. During the phase of determining if they acted inappropriately, through some sort legal action such as a court proceeding. It is discovered that this person could have knowingly violated this rule, because they were unaware that it existed or they could have been pushed to engage in such action. A good example of this would be a doctor that is speeding to make it to the hospital, to save lives from a plane accident that occurred. When he was stopped by the police for violating the law, he told them why he was speeding and received a ticket. During the trial the doctor, claims that the reason he violated the law was to go to get the hospital as quickly as possible to save lives. Once this argument was presented as a part of the defense's justification; the charges against were dropped. The way that this relates to special considerations, is that the doctor was pushed by the circumstances of the plane accident to go to the hospital as quickly as possible. Because he was being pushed this event, makes this a special consideration, which allows the actions that were engaged in to be excusable, even though they are in violation of the law. (Strawson, n.d.)

When you examine special considerations a little further, the issue becomes even more confusing. Part of the reason for this is the various legal distinctions that are given for those who violate such rules. Where, someone could knowingly violate a law / regulation, then when they are being held accountable for their actions. They will argue that various circumstances could have affected their mental thought process. At which point, it will be argued that the person should be allowed to seek help, to rectify the situation. In many cases, the arguments presented will highlight the person as a victim of their environment, which twisted their mental thought process. Therefore, to punish someone for such actions is in violation of society's laws. An example of this can be seen with the trial of John Hinckley. This man attempted to assassinate President Regan in 1981. During the trial, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The logic that was used by the defense is: that he was delusional, thinking that he was the character played by Robert DeNiro in the movie Taxi Driver. This delusional attitude pushed him to attempt to assassinate the President, as he was acting out what took place in the movie. (Linder, 2002) What this shows is that the various special considerations were designed to prevent punishing those who were facing undue amounts of influence. (Strawson, n.d.)

When you look at the arguments presented by the pessimists on determination, it is clear; that they believe the use of rules / laws to govern behavior is ineffective. This is because punishment can only go so far. At which point, people will act upon their own free will to do what they think is morally correct. This will be shaped upon their experiences and what they learned in regards to morally correct / incorrect behavior. The biggest problem that many critics have of determination is the special considerations that take place. Where, they see this as nothing more than an attempt to excuse someone who obviously violated the laws / rules. but, because they can make a valid reason why the engaged in such actions, it should be excused. Using the example from the John Hinckley case, the pessimists would argue that he was influenced by his father constantly working and his mother afraid to go out into public (a condition known as agro phobia). Where, they would say that this established the foundation of his morals. Then, once he became older and was having challenges because of these different values. He would watch the movie Taxi Driver and was able to associate with the loneliness as well as pain. At which point, he would spend the next several years drifting around, trying to find his place in life. This would push him to assassinate a famous politician, to account for these twisted morals that he has. In this example, the pessimists would argue that Hinckley knew all along what he was doing. Where, he would con and lie to his parents to receive the money to drift from place to place around the country. Then, when he purchased the gun to assassinate Regan and waited for him to leave the hotel. This is as sign that he carefully thought out everything that he was doing. In this aspect, the pessimists will argue that the various rules / laws did nothing to discourage the behavior of Hinckley. (Linder, 2008) Instead, this only encouraged this kind behavior by allowing him to be found not guilty for reason of insanity. Especially when you consider the fact that only 2% of such defense tactics were granted this kind of special consideration. (Linder, 2002) This is significant because the pessimists will argue how ineffective determination is at setting various morals / behaviors. Then, the special considerations give anyone who feels that they faced undue amounts of pressure, to try and excuse the actions that they had taken. As a result, the critics will claim that determinism is nothing more than a failure, which does not grasp the real concepts affecting morals and values. (Strawson, n.d.)