Free Will and Moral Integrity - Essay Example

1. As Requested, Rough Draft of Essay as follows: Are We Responsible for Anything that We Do Or is Everything We Do Caused By External Factors - Choosing to Accept Personal Responsibility is a Matter of Free Will and Moral Integrity Introduction: In his essay, 'The Dilemma of Determinism', William James appears to consider determinism a problem in the exercise of free will, which for compatibilists is an uncomfortable idea. However, He contends that free will does exist and despite dispensing with the word 'freedom', argues eloquently on behalf of that premise As to determinism, he says that: "The stronghold of the deterministic sentiment is the antipathy to the idea of chance...what is it, they ask, (determinists) but barefaced crazy unreason, the negation of intelligibility and law And if the slightest particle of it exists anywhere, what is to prevent the whole fabric from falling together.....and chaos from recommencing her topsy-turvy reign" (William James, Essay p. 5) This essay intends to show, in the final analysis, that compatibilism and determinism can in fact operate side by side, but it is his argument on free will, or 'chance' as he likes to term it, which willbe explored. The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, as presented in his work 'Leviathan' will be used to refute the concept of free will and morality, with E. M. Forster's 'The Machine Stops' as a counter argument in support of James. For the purposes of this discussion, free will is defined as 'being able to make a choice, without constraint, given the circumstances of the individual.' (A personal definition) William James - Free Will, Morality and 'The Dilemma of Determinism': James argues that if we take the word 'chance, consider it to be the possibility of different choices and subsequent outcomes, then free will is being applied. Following on from the quotation, an interpretation of his words might be that he considers that determinists believe chance decisions and ambiguity of outcomes are not how the universe or the world work If such a preposterous notion were to be accepted and acted upon, (can we call this notion free will) then everything would fall apart, given 2. that the history of the universe is fixed, nothing can or should happen other than by the logical, ration ways already determined by what has gone before. Yet there is much weight behind his claim that a dilemma exists, as he cites the possible response to the Brockton murder, which determinism, of necessity, would have to make - he fears the possible outcome to be a pessimistic acceptance of evil, almost, that's how it is, what can be done His argument brings to the fore, the moral questions of right and wrong, good and evil, coming down squarely on the side of free will. The beliefs in an outside Providence, in man's own ability to make moral decisions, may well be translatable to the concept of compatibilism and determinism going hand in hand. But it is the aspect of free will and morality which drives his argument, and when he states, "Chance" is ---what Just this, -- the chance that in moral respects the future may be other and better than the past has been. This is the only chance we have any motive for supposing to exist." (James, p. 19) we are convinced of his sincerity. He further contends that whether it be our creator or ourselves who decides to choose good over evil, matters little, it is necessary to admit that all decisions are in the here and now, we make them, and he describes it thus "gives the palpating life reality to our moral life and makes it tingle." (James p. 21) James is convinced that man has and uses free will, and in so doing, demonstrates a moral integrity. He considers that determinists face a dilemma in accepting that chance and choice can play a part in understanding self and the world, that a philosophy such as this denies man choice or the right to belief in Providence or humanity. The argument is supported by the events depicted in 'The Machine Stops', portraying a reality of the determinist theory in action, which nullifies and destroys man's physical, mental and aspirational capabilities. James shows a depth of understanding of the human psyche, of metaphysical and theological ideals and there is no problem in accepting the argument he makes on behalf of the existence of free will. The difficulty, for a compatibilist, lies in the dismissal of determinisim, or rather the interpretation of how it contributes, or does not, as the suggestion may be apprehended. 3. Thomas Hobbes Refutation of the Concept of Free Will - Leviathan: His philosophy, as expressed in 'Leviathan', refutes the concept of the existence of free will, its theological implications and the perceived dangers of a mechanistic and logically controlled world. Instead, he espouses the belief that anything in the universe can be explained by physics, chemistry or mathematics - and this includes human beings. As humans are physical objects, machines in which everything functions as a series of mechanical processes, then even thoughts and ideas work this way. They are a physical operation within the nervous system, which cause us to have ideas. He considers that actions taken are as a result of desires and appetites in the human body, experienced as discomforts or even pain. Any action then, is taken because of the need to alleviate these conditions, so everything an individual chooses to do is determined by a natural inclination to ease physical suffering within the body. So, the free will concept expressed by James, and the compatibilist belief in its existence, is not, according to Hobbes, about human capability to think and make reasoned choices, it is whatever the strongest need dictates. Further, he considers that the idea of free will is a promotion by church and theological leaders as a method for keeping ordinary people subservient, for fear of hellfire and damnation, if the 'evil' as opposed to the 'good' choice is made. This concept which he expresses, has some basis in historical truth, and aligned with the idea that man's nature is animalistic, driven by the most recently experienced desire and appetite, then the need for some sovereign authority, which directs matters from above, which concedes that each is part of the whole, made by man to serve man, is not wholly unacceptable. Leviathan is such a creation, and so long as all the component parts operated to meet the needs of all the other parts, from top to bottom, side to side, then there is no need for free will. After all, what is this but a serious of nerves working in the brain, as dictated by natural law, and only the result of the need to have a comfortable existence. Mechanism and determinism will serve man well, ensuring the baser, animal appetites are suppressed and all share in the well-being of each other. Nothing more is required, and once it is understood how man functions, how the system functions and how the 4. processes of the world all contribute to make life a comfortable, predictable environment, then happiness and contentment should ensue. There will exist not only a personal philosophy, a way to live, but a political state which seeks to care for all its individual members, so long as they keep the faith and do as is required. Once this system is embedded, man will be saved from his baser instincts, his subservience to philosophies and religions which only seek to keep him in an ignorant and fearful state of mind and being. Leviathan, made by man and for man, will ensure a true commonwealth of citizens, with a 'sovereign' power which is dedicated to the service of its people. This will become the norm, there will be less chance of erroneous choice or behavior detrimental to the good of all, because in accepting that this is how it was, is and always will be, due to natural, physical and mechanical laws, man is assured of a better world in which contented individuals all play their part, following the rules. With these theories, Hobbes is overturning both metaphysical and theological ideals, though his intention is surely not to deny the existence of a God, rather he perceives the dangers of those who use such ideals to the detriment of society. Counter Argument to Hobbes: Though Hobbes does not entirely disregard the concept of free will, contending that so long as there are no external pressures, a person has choice, his interpretation as to how that choice is made and acted upon does not accord human beings with higher reasoning powers. James would possibly counter that he has shown us in the choices he describes, simple though they may be, the exercise of free will. That such powers exist is undeniable, as even small children understand quite early on in life, the differences between right and wrong, without being taught so. There is much research to prove that this is an intrinsic part of the human make up, we are born moral and do make decisions based on that precept. For example, a child as young as 18 months can see that it is not good to hit another, and will express this idea. Similarly, a young child seeing a stranger or a loved one in distress, will go to their aid and offer comfort. They could choose to be indifferent, that is free will, but somehow, the moral programming makes them choose the 'good' over the 'bad' way to act. If we accept Hobbes when he 5. tells us that such decisions are made in order to relieve discomfort, or fulfill the latest desire or appetite, then such phenomenon as described above would not exist. That it does, refutes his argument. Hobbes might then counter with the view that these examples represent a manifestation of natural, physical law, the operation of a biological function within the human brain. The contention here is that this is not the case, these examples serve to demonstrate what places man above the rest of the animal world. James might well call upon the example of the situation in 'The Machine Stops' to support his argument. This impacts on an emotional level, as it shows in prophetic, dramatic horror, the dreadful outcomes, should man espouse determinism to the exclusion of all else. Vashti represents the determinist, accepting the status quo, that life is good, determined by the Machine and its awesome power. It was always thus, since true civilization began, in her view, and any other thoughts or actions contrary to this way of life are either blasphemous, dangerous, or sheer madness. Kuno, on the other hand, appears to represent the individual who wishes to exercise free will, make choices which do not meet with the accepted norm, and is willing to suffer for his beliefs and actions. Forster appears to be exposing the dangers with the hypothesis that if humanity accepts that the individual is controlled by external factors, that ideas must come from outside, that thought is better if based on another's thinking, "Beware of first-hand ideas...they are but the physical impressions produced by life and fear, on on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy" (Forster, 1909, p.16) then everything will be right, as it should be. The break down of civilization, as the characters have come to know it, seems to be a metaphor for re-birth, for despite the dying at the end, this death is a re-birth of humanity taking its chances, making choices not dictated by the Machine, and not preordained. Had either been able to see into the future, their perceptions of certain aspects of the mechanistic, electronic age which now pertains would lend further support to both their arguments. Today, so many people are confined to a chair, sitting before a screen, communication via a huge web, which 6. while it brings them together, distances them from the reality of human, face to face contact. This appears to be the accepted norm as to how life and the world should be, and that to go back to how it was before electronic communications ruled, would be a denial of progress. This state of being may well be perceived as an erosion of man's ability to think for himself, to make decisions without either electronic intervention, or a determinist viewpoint. Hobbes does not allow for a personal morality, rather suggesting that this be dictated by a powerful system, never mind stating that the system head, (Leviathan) is man-made. The presumption that all processes are mechanically driven, that physical science can explain everything, that such laws can then predict or determine an outcome, is much too restrictive. Yes, it can be accepted that a person may possess or be influenced by forces beyond their control (genetics, environment etc.). This determinism, sometimes described as soft, does fit with the compatibilist philosophy and the free will it espouses. The two work as a cohesive whole which allows for a deeper understanding on a personal, moral and even universal level, as man seeks to understand himself and the world. Such 'allowance' or ability, or even tenet to live by, appears to be discarded by Hobbes' approach. Man is not merely a machine, nor can human beings be totally dominated by or dictated to by a power, regardless of whether that power has been created by humanity itself. As has been demonstrated in 'The Machine Stops', attempting to do so would mean the end of man as a thinking, living entity. This is a literary, imaginary example of the consequences of living thus. Others, more real and recent, may be Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler, White South Africa under Apartheid, Stalinist Russia, and so forth, wherein the machine made life good for what it considered to be its people. As history shows, within these regimes, individuals, like the fictional Kuno, sought to exercise their own free will, make choices, which were 'dangerous' enough to result in punishment and even death. In the final analysis, they followed their conscience. That phenomenon is common to all totalitarian regimes, wherein individuals will, from whatever 7. motivational, psychological, religious or philosophical standpoint, recognize the differences between right and wrong, see and act against the injustice of the situation imposed on the 'Homeless', the 'untermenschen' etc. Had they merely sat back and agreed with Hobbes' contention that, " Natural liberty, is consistent with God's will, which causes everything.." (L. Chap. 21, p. 46) and that the will, along with the rest of the natural world, is made up of matter-in-motion, then freedom is merely unhindered bodily motion, then man's efforts to right the wrongs or overcome evil would never have occurred. That they did and continue to do so, is powerful evidence to contradict this denial of the existence of free will. Such evidence, such activity, so much historical fact, also supports the original argument discussed here, that of William James. Further evidence lies in the incontrovertible facts that once the Machine, the regime, the sovereign power begins to malfunction, the parts of the whole begin to suffer, whether or not they have faithfully adhered to every premise and law within their society. This raises the question as to who is controlling what, and if dependent only on a mechanistic, seemingly logical but totalitarian model, then there is no one part of that whole capable of 'mending' it, bringing it back to the desired status quo. The contention here is that those individuals who operate from the belief in free will and moral values are indeed the people capable of rebuilding, learning and creating something better. Until the next time, of course. Counter Argument: Hobbes might very well take the historical examples cited above and say that these prove him to be correct, has not mankind shown how bestial and immoral he is and always will be, without the ability to obey natural laws, look at the chaos which was caused. Had everyone done everything correctly, according to natural law and the law of God, then none of this would have happened. And sometimes this theory must seem to hold some water, given man's inhumanity throughout history and eternity, it seems. Even more rational, had everything operated on the 8. premise of predictability, then the bestial and evil people could have been identified and prevented from carrying out the dreadful horrors. Conclusion: James argues for free will, with the difficulty of accepting determinism. Hobbes wants this to be recognized as a natural, physical function, explicable by science and mathematics and man's lower nature. On the question of free will, history supports James, as does the sinister vision of E. M. Forster's Machine. On the other hand, it may also be considered valid to suggest that history supports Hobbes' philosophy. The compatibilist viewpoint accepts that free will is there, we have freedom to choose, to take chances, to be a free agent, even when outside influences such as our own genetic make up, our life experiences and upbringing impact, simply by making us what we are at any given time. This ability to reason with the self-conscious awareness that only man possesses is what sets us apart from the animals. This discussion has sought to contend that these components, together with our rational ability to make the right choices, are what combine to make us responsible human beings, with moral integrity. . Works Cited Forster, E. M. 1909. The Machine Stops First published in the Oxford and Cambridge Review, 1909. Copyright E. M. Forster, 1947. 16 June 2006 http://plexus.org/forster.html Hobbes, Thomas 1651, Leviathan Copyright The University of Oregon 1999. 17 June 2006 http://darkwing.uregon.edu/rbear/hobbes/leviathan.html James, William - Essays The Dilemma of Determinism 17 June 2006 http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/WJ/.htm Read More