Notions Free Will and Determinism - Essay Example

Module Module ID: Free Will The present paper aims to eluci the notions freewill and determinism in the light of the works created by 18th century US philosopher Jonathan Edwards on the one side, and his contemporary Scottish philosopher David Hume on the other. The main aim behind discussing the above-mentioned topics includes the age-old controversy the philosophers, theologians and dogmatists maintain with regards to whether man has been granted with the free will or he has to survive under the Nature’s already established decision regarding the fate of humans i.e. determinism. Though both the sides bring evidence in support of their claims, yet the discussions endorse the very point that most of human actions, as well as man’s fate, are dependent of determinism though humans have been granted some powers to get involved into the activities of their choice to some extent in the wake of their whims and wishes. Hence, the topic under investigation observes great philosophic significance in its nature and scope. The Paper: Renowned theologian Jonathan Edwards (1754) has provided a detailed account of the concept of free will in his works, where he views the free will to be the desires prevailing in the human breast, and produce pleasure for man. Since it is mind that maintains the powers to direct the physical organs for the performance of an act or abstinence from the same, the mind issues commands whether some specific act in the wake of the desire should be performed or refrained from executing the same. Hence, there always appears some motive that results into the accomplishment of various tasks because of the desires that affect human mind. Nevertheless, man cannot perform every act out of his free will due to the prior knowledge of the Lord regarding all the things and incidents that would take place in man’s life. Edwards strictly lays stress upon the Foreknowledge Almighty Lord possesses with regards to the events and incidents to be taken place in the universe. It also includes the events occurring in human life, about which the Lord certainly contains previous knowledge about the free actions as well as their moral agents (392). He proves the prior knowledge God maintains in respect of the future developments by alluding to the Scripture, where the predictions about the future developments have been made by God, which do not actually come under the definition of the uncertain guesses (393). In addition to this, since God is also already aware of the whims prevailing in the minds and hearts of the coming human generations, He has determined the actions the individuals belonging to these generations would perform and execute during their life span at large, which could be the products of the volitions of their moral (and immoral) agents (393). Hence, the actions and volitions appear to be the predetermined phenomena over which humans could have little or no power, according to Edwards’ doctrine (394). Hence, the foreknowledge of God about all events and actions that are actually the product of volitions provides an indirect pardon to the human actions due to the very reality that these steps had already been determined, against which humans could not be held responsible for. Another very important argument made by Edwards in support of his claim regarding the determinism includes the evident existence of the human actions that would occur in future years to come, to which he called the nature of Necessity (394). Furthermore, a thing existence of which is necessary in the universe, why it could be endorsed that the thing itself is not necessary. Hence, the action and event that has been preserved as the Foreknowledge in the possession of Nature would certainly occur one day in exactly the same manner as it has been preserved as the part of the Foreknowledge of the Providence. In other words, the argument indirectly refutes the possibility of free will due to the existence of actions and events as an essential part of Foreknowledge (395). Consequently, having uncertainty with regards to the foreknowledge Almighty God contains is vehemently inconsistent in its nature and scope. On the other hand, Hume explores relationship among actions, motives, inclinations and circumstances, where each of these phenomena observe strong association with all of the others (411-12). However, Hume does not associate liberty to every whim; on the contrary, he attributes liberty to be the power of getting involved or refraining from performing an action or the other according to the determination of the free will. One of the most significant notions Hume aims to elucidate includes the existence of a strong cause behind each and everything has been in prevalence in the universe at large (413). Though Hume categorizes the causes into important and futile types, where a cause could be vital or base one, yet no action or incident could appear without having an effective cause that appears to be supporting the same to occur and/or take place in one way or the other. In addition to this, obtaining an opportunity as well as have a chance for getting involved into an action is just a negative word in the eyes of Hume, where he does not associate the performance an action that has been executed without prior strong intentions for executing the same. It is partly due to the very reality that the actions that do not occur in consistency could not be stated to be the part of the life and activities of some specific individual. However, the individuals have to be responsible for actions taken to be as routine incident or by chance; it is particularly the case with the acts that inflict harm on others. Hume declares crimes and offences committed by the individuals to be the condemnable and punishable acts, though the humans should not be held responsible for committing crimes and offences (414), he asserts, because of man’s inability to escape the acts that are already decided ones. Hence, instead of abhorring the person(s) involved into committing crimes and deviancies, just the bad acts creating harm to society and its members should be abhorred. Since no one could be held responsible for the act he does not have authority on doing the same, punishing and penalizing him by the social establishment is against the principle of ethics and moral values at large (414-15). Somehow, the philosopher perhaps forgets to mention that the humans have been granted the powers to make a choice between right and wrong while doing various chores at individual and collective scale. For instance, if a murderer is not persecuted in the wake of his killing an innocent person, some other could seek the same level of mercy after killing that murderer by pleading his innocence in the light of the determinist approach that humans do not have the authority our their deeds and misdeeds altogether. Consequently, man is certainly responsible for the actions he takes and the tasks he performs in one way or the other. In other words, the acts obliged by the individuals could not be neglected and ignored by stating them to be the temporary and perishable ones, as maintained by Hume due to the very reality that though these acts could be perishable ones, yet their impacts are certainly long lasting and pertinent to create harm and sufferings upon the victims. Somehow, Hume declares the humans as pure as they were at the time of their birth even after committing some wrong doings upon others, and hence are not liable to be punished altogether (416). It is partly due to the very fact that the actions made by the people are frequently the outcome of sudden provocation or some specific mental condition, which are not actually the part of the human activities in routine life at all (416). Similarly, Hume seeks absolute exemption against all acts on the basis of his notion that man’s being unable to overcome the occurrence of the actions and events provides him with the complete amnesty against all the acts attributed to him. Hence, human actions do neither deserve praise nor do they require any blame due to the very fact that they are actually the product of external violence instead of the internal thoughts and whims capturing the mind and instigating it for action. To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that the arguments associated with both the philosophers under investigation provide sound evidences in favor of determinism and against free will, though Hume looks more concrete in making arguments in support of man’s helplessness with regards to carrying out various acts out of his own. On the one side, Edwards lays stress upon the Foreknowledge possessed by God, which contradicts the choice of a free will for humans, and on the other side, Hume insists upon the role played by the external factors in respect of carrying out various acts that result into the occurrence of different events and incidents subsequently. Somehow, Edwards does not appear to be taking the free will into consideration, perhaps because of the Salvation doctrine the Christian mythology advocates, where the Holy Christ had chosen to be crucified at the hands of the cruel non-believers in order to win absolute pardon for those who have maintained unabated and unflinching belief in him. Work Cited Read More