This paper examines John Hospers' deterministic account of human behavior, which holds that character is formed by genetics and early environment — forces beyond any individual's control — making behavior effectively predetermined. The paper evaluates this view by testing it against empirical counterexamples, such as the significant percentage of genetically at-risk individuals who never develop predicted disorders. It concludes that while Hospers' determinism can rationalize outcomes after the fact, it functions poorly as a forward-looking guide for ethical decision-making, exposing a fundamental limitation common to deterministic philosophies.
The paper uses a reductio ad absurdum strategy: it accepts the determinist framework provisionally, then shows that the framework only "works" when reasoning backward from known outcomes. This exposes a logical circularity — determinism cannot fail to explain what has already happened — without requiring the author to prove free will exists.
The paper follows a tight three-part structure: (1) exposition of Hospers' position with direct quotation; (2) empirical and logical counterarguments, including statistical examples; (3) a meta-critique identifying determinism as a self-fulfilling prophecy with limited prescriptive value. This mirrors a standard philosophical essay arc: state the view, challenge it, assess its overall utility.
John Hospers takes a fundamentally deterministic view of human nature. According to Hospers, we are born with a certain character shaped by influences such as genetics and our original environment. These influences are beyond our immediate control, and because the causes of our actions are rooted in our characters, our behaviors are effectively predetermined. Hospers writes that every character "has been molded by influences which in large measure at least determine his present behavior; he is literally the product of these influences, stemming from periods prior to his 'years of discretion,' giving him a host of character traits that he cannot change. . . . What if even the degree of will power available to him in shaping his habits . . . is a factor over which he has no control? What are we to say of this kind of 'freedom?' Is it not rather like the freedom of the machine to stamp labels on cans when it has been devised for just that purpose?" (Fay 2009). Characters are set in stone, mechanized to produce certain good or bad outcomes — to "stamp labels" — according to this analogy. They cannot become better; they can only make a defective imprint.
Hard determinism of this kind holds that every human action is the inevitable result of prior causes, leaving no genuine room for free choice or moral responsibility.
Reasoning backwards, it is of course easy to demonstrate a lack of personal responsibility for almost any action. For example, an individual with a fraternal twin who is schizophrenic is roughly 60% more likely to develop the disorder than someone without such a family history. Poverty, poor nourishment, inadequate education, and other deprivations statistically increase the likelihood of negative life outcomes. Even the desire to change may itself require cultivation through education and may have roots in genetic factors.
However, it is equally impossible to predict with absolute certainty — even given known genetic and environmental circumstances — who will flourish. What of the 40% of individuals sharing the same genetic makeup and social influences who do not become schizophrenic? Unlike a stamp-imprinter, a human being apparently "set" at an early age can make a surprisingly unique and better imprint than its designers might expect. Additionally, many individuals with favorable life circumstances fail to succeed, despite every indication that their background should have guaranteed a positive outcome.
These counterexamples to strict determinism suggest that human beings possess some capacity for self-determination that resists reduction to prior causes alone.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.