P1 - Free Will And Moral Responsibility Flashcards
What is free will
The capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action
To be morally responsible, people must act through their own free will
Machines and free will
They are incapable of independent thought, so cannot be blamed for whatever they do
Dependent on those who programme or drive them, if something goes wrong, blame lies with the conscious agents, not the unconscious machine
Non-human animals and free will
They are also incapable of independent thought
E.g. if a lion kills a little animal for food, the lion is not morally responsible for the death agony of the little animal
How does free will hold moral responsibility
Need a free human agent
There are some situations where even if a person believes they are free to choose what to do – their upbringing, psychological makeup, genetics might suggest that they actually have no control over their actions
What moral state does the human agent need to be to hold moral responsibility
Needs to be conscious and capable of making the decision
Humans that do not meet the requirement of understanding the difference between right and wrong
Babies and young children and those with severe learning difficulties: not regarded as being able to take legal or moral responsibility for their actions
Those suffering from dementia or other serious mental illnesses: not able to distinguish right and wrong, or to understand the significance of their actions
Under extreme pressure: could be argued that people are no longer able to think normally, therefore may take actions that they know to be wrong
Sources of moral awareness - innate sense
Some will argue that we all have an innate moral sense of right and wrong
E.g. we generally feel it is right to go to the aid of someone in need or distress
David Hume’s approach to morality – we have a built-in ‘moral sense’
Sources of moral awareness - social context
We learn about right and wrong from our social context
We learn them from our parents and others in society as we grow up, this forms the basis of our social life, this means that morality may be linked to particular cultural and social traditions
Questions of right and wrong can be culturally conditioned, therefore vary from society to society and over time
Sources of moral awareness - religious morality
Each religion presents its followers with fundamental moral principles, sets of practical moral rules which serve to define the way of life for that particular religious group
Some traditions tend to define social practices in a way that religion ‘embodies’ its own culture in terms of food, dress and day-to-day behaviour, while others tend to present moral principles that are adaptable to a variety of cultures
What is determinism
The view that all events and states of affairs including all human decisions and actions are the necessary consequence of previous states of affairs
What is causal determinism
Often what determinism is identified as
When the laws of cause and effect in physics suggest that there is a complete chain of event which causes one an other going back to the big bang
What is hard determinism
The view that determinism is real - no one has free will
Epicurus’ approach on determinism
Views that the world consisted entirely of atoms within a void; merely physical - therefore any event was theoretically predicable given its circumstances and the natural forces involved
Meanest hat we have no forces over nature nor can we determine situations, no freedom
However, Epicurus did not like this (wanted to maximise happiness in life), therefore tried to modify his physics to make free will possible
What are the fundamental views regarding the extent of moral responsibility
Hard determinism - we are not free, fully determined by causal factors
Libertarianism - we are free
The extent of moral responsibility - hard determinism
Science works on the assumption that the world operates regularly and is theoretically predictable - so all events have causes that are theoretically knowable
Hard determinism therefore governs ethical choices - ethical choices do not exist, our moral decisions are determined as events in the brain
Do we have free will - hard determinism
We may think we have free will, but it is an illusion created by the human brain
Hard determinists may argue that since freedom is an illusion, we are not logically justified in claiming responsibility for our actions, even if we felt that we had freely chose them
What is reductionism
An approach that reduces a complex entity to the smallest component parts of which it is made to understand it
E.g. human behaviour is reduced to biology, which is then reduced to chemistry, then reduced to physics
How does reductionism support determinism
If human behaviour can be reduced to physics, than our actions are just the result of chemical and electrical activity, this means that the complex whole is determined by these scientific laws
Spinoza’s approach to hard determinism
Everything in the world is totally determined by physical causes, therefore there is no scope for human freedom
You think you are making a completely free choice, but that simply reflects your ignorance of the causes operating on you all the time
The experience of freedom is an illusion generated by our ignorance of the totality of causes acting upon us
What is scientific determinism
A form of hard determinism which holds that all events, including human actions and choices are determined by the antecedent events and states of affairs, so there can be no freedom of will
Evidence used to support scientific determinism
Time appears to be able to work backwards in time as well as forwards (as seen through scientific evidence of the Big Bang and the start of the universe) - this is a complete sequence of cause and effect, every event in the universe is determined by physics, the future too - supporting the scientific determinist view that everything is caused
Scientific determinism and omnipotence
An omnipotent mind would be aware of every minute of the sequence of cause and effect
They could also reverse the process back to the Big Bang
Scientific determinism and the brain
The brain can also be analysed as a physical system and thoughts appear to be electrical impulses in the brain
Human beings can also be analysed by sciences like anthropology, sociology, physiology and psychology - suggests that we have no free will as everything is determined by science
Pierre-Simon Laplace’s quote + view on scientific determinism
“We ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow… an intelligence which could comprehend all forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it”
Everything appears to arise in dependence on other tings, so the physical world has no scope of human free will to make a difference
Avoiding scientific determinism - probabilistic laws of nature
Science generally operates through experiment evidence or observations, however, old theories are often replaced with newer, more accurate ones.
Therefore our current scientific knowledge may be wrong, this means that scientific laws cannot claim the absolute truth, but only a degree of probability
Avoiding scientific determinism - quantum scale
There is debate among quantum physicists on how the quantum theory should be interpreted
Bohr and Heisenberg claims that laws governing the quantum world are inter deterministic and probabilistic, if this is true then determinism seems to be false, however there are other quantum world interpretations too
What is psychological determinism
A form of hard determinism (e.g. skinner, human behaviour is a result of genetic and environmental conditions), there can be no freedom of will
Psychological determinism - Skinner
Skinner’s study in operant conditioning and his rat box experiment. Suggests that all behaviour can be conditioned, through the reinforcement of behaviour based on their last outcomes. If there are good consequences then behaviour would be repeated, if there are bad consequences, then behaviour would be avoided.
Psychological determinism - Pavlov
Pavlov’s study into classical conditioning and his experiment on dogs. Behaviour can be associated, by associating two events you can produce a certain behaviour (e.g. Pavlov’s dogs associated the buzzer with food, therefore they would salivate when hearing the buzzer)
Psychological determinism, ‘radical behaviourism’ by Skinner
‘Radical behaviourism’ sometimes used to refer to Skinner’s approach as it involves all aspects of mental activity
Skinner denied the existence of internal psychological states such as intentions and purposes, also denied the existence of free will
Claimed that determinism is ‘complete’
Evaluating skinner’s radical behaviourism
Noam Chomsky dismissed Skinner’s proposals
Claimed that Skinner’s application of animal behaviour to complex human behaviour is unsound
Also, that if human behaviour in its entirety is merely a set of conditioned responses determined by genetics and the environment, then his own theories are an example of a conditioned response, so why should we accept it
What is theological determinism
A form of hard determinism according to which the future is determined by God’s omniscience, so there can be no freedom of will
Theological Determinism - St. Augustine and Calvin
Theological determinism led St. Augustine and Calvin to the doctrine of predestination
An omniscient God must know the entire past, present and future of the universe and of humanity.
Calvin concluded that God’s omniscience means that… “some are eternally ordained to glory, through the sheer will of God, and the rest are ordained to eternal torment” - this view receives less support, since it makes it seem like God is a immoral monster
Theological determinism - the problem of an omniscient God’s foreknowledge
An omniscient God’s foreknowledge must be causal, because if God knows that you will do ‘x’ at a specific point in the future, you cannot avoid doing ‘x’
If this is the case, then free will must be an illusion and all events in the universe are determined by God’s omniscience
Theological determinism - a timeless God
Aquinas’ view that God doesn’t exist in time, but exists timelessly
Some may argue that God’s omniscience means that God sees the results of our future free choices but does not cause them, God has no power to intervene and control, but he does not - he permits human free choices
Theological determinism - a temporal God
God exists in time, God cannot know the future, so Theological determinism is false
E.g. process theology, they see God and the physical universe as two aspects of one reality: God is equivalent with all the physical processes of the universe
In this, the future hasn’t happened yet, a temporal God would not know the future, would not be a threat to human free will
Conclusions concerning Hard Determinism
No conclusive evidence to show that Hard determinism is true or false
Libet’s experiments - concluding Hard determinism
His experiments seemed to show that the brain prepares to act well before we are conscious of the urge to move, the will is not under an individual’s conscious control, but is the result of determined electrical brain processes - free will is denied and mental activity is determined
This produced a flutter of approvals from determinists, thinking that this supports determinism - but Libet denied the deterministic interpretation of the data, he argued that the brain had the ability to veto pre-conscious intentions, this veto is also freely chosen
What is libertarianism
The view that, despite restraints form genetics and the environment, human beings are free moral agents
Libertarian view on the relationship between the mind and body
Most libertarians are mind-body dualists
Follows Descartes’ view that the mind is a separate substance from the physical body and brain, and is able to freely act in the physical world
What would a ‘moderate’ libertarian think
- would not deny that the external world is deterministic
- would also accept that deterministic processes affect living beings
- would accept that the personality is to a large extent governed by heredity, social situation and environment
- would accept that such influences incline us to act in certain ways rather than others
Reasoning behind the libertarian view that we are free
Human behaviour is not determined by external causes
All our experience of decision-making and following moral principles, also our sense of guilt when something goes wrong, suggests that we are actually free
That we can choose what to do, and that we must therefore take responsibility for our actions
Libertarianism - limitations on human behaviour
Physical limitations: there are things that we are physically incapable of doing
Psychological limitations: if we have a strong psychological motivation for one particular choice, this will have some bearing on what we choose, depending on the degree of motivation
Social limitations: we are all limited by the financial, social and political structures under which we live. The way we live are influenced by our social circumstances
Libertarianism view on complete freedom
Believes that complete freedom would lead to some kind of paralysis
Limitations (physical, psychological, social) are acceptable, because the idea of complete freedom makes little sense
Most common reason for arguing for libertarianism - experience
We experience ourselves as free, and we also have a sense of moral responsibility (including guilt when we get things wrong)
‘Folk psychology’ - the opinion of ordinary people who make day-to-day decisions without doubting that they are freely made
Determinist rejection to ‘folk psychology’
Reject this, argue that this ‘sense of freedom’ is simply an illusion
This is brought about by the fact that our brains are so complex, and the reasons for our actions are so varied - we simply experience the unconscious sorting out of these reasons as freedom
Libertarian response to the determinist rejection of ‘folk psychology’
If this is an illusion, then it is a very persistent one
Also, if unconscious processes are so complex, then it is just as likely that they support real freedom as opposed to the imaginary kind
Libertarianism - forward looking
Determinism - looks back at the sequence of prior causes which determines an event
Libertarianism - primarily concerned with future goals, precisely because the future can be self-directed
Emphasis on future action, where moral decisions are goal-directed, the libertarian can control their desires in favour of rational deliberation
Evaluating libertarianism - evidence
Determinists argue that there is evidence for determinism, but none for libertarianism
Libertarians argue that the only evidence possessed by determinists is that the physical systems are governed by natural laws, but there is no compelling reason to think that the mind is governed in such a way
Libertarianism > determinism
Most of us assume that we are free - moral guilt proves this as we would realise when we wrongly make a free choice
If determinists claim that determinism is right and libertarianism is wrong, why should we listen to them - why should we listen to a determined statement
What is incompatibilism
The view that determinism and libertarianism are incompatible; a deterministic universe has no room for free will, we must choose one or the other
What is compatibilism
Sometimes called ‘soft determinism’
The view that human freedom and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism
Hume’s understanding of free will
Thinks that we have ‘liberty of spontaneity’ rather than ‘liberty of indifference’
Liberty of indifference - freedom from necessity, being free of causal necessity and he saw this as a delusion
Liberty of spontaneity - liberty which is consistent with necessity, the ability to do what you desire
Hume - the necessity required by causal determinism
The kind of necessity required by causal determinism is not logical necessity
Logical necessity - the kind we find in maths, e.g. 2 + 2 = 4
We have got into the habit of assuming that the laws of nature are from logical necessity when all we see in nature is constant conjunction
Hume - constant conjunction
“Our idea… of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together, and the mind is determined by the custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other… beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent interference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connection”
What does Hume mean by constant conjunction
Whenever we look at nature, we see that (A) is usually accompanied by (B)
E.g. whenever (A) water is heated to 100 degrees, we constantly find that (B) water boils
Since these things always happen together, our mind makes a connection.
Therefore, we cannot talk about the necessary laws of cause and effect in nature, that the understanding of ‘necessity is too strong’
All we can talk about in nature is constant conjunction, that (B) would constantly follow (A)
Constant conjunction in human nature
People’s principles and motives are as constant as the patterns of wind, rain, etc.
People in societies depend on each other and there is hardly anything that we do without reference to each other
Constant conjunction in humans - Hume’s quote
“The mutual dependence of men is so great in all societies that scarce any human action is entirely complete in itself, or is performed without some reference to the actions of others”
How does human regularity show that liberty and necessity are compatible
Since constant conjunction is found both in nature and human nature, physical events, human wishes and desires are a one kind operation - the actions of the will and natural causes form one linked chain
There is then a regularity between human choices on one hand and human actions on the other
Therefore, human choices must stem from human choices, and this is required fro free will
Hume - why does freedom require determinism
If our wishes and desires were simply random, the order of human life, by which we make sense of the world and ourselves would be lost
Hume’s definition of freedom
“… a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.”
Evaluating Hume’s compatibilism - his philosophical method
He has a good philosophical method
Insists that the whole debate about freedom and determinism is about definitions, and that once we accept his definitions, everything becomes clear - that is correct
If necessity boils down to ‘constant conjunction’ in nature and in human nature, then Hume seems to be right: liberty is consistent with necessity and we have freedom to do what we desire
Evaluating Hume’s compatibilism - compatibilism vs. Determinism
Hard determinists believe that Hume’s idea of necessity and causation as ‘constant conjunction’ is too watered down
Hume’s ‘wishes and desires’ can be claimed as the product of absolute causal forces, so the idea that wishes and desires can in any way be free is unscientific
Evaluating compatibilism - reason
Libertarians believe that compatibilism ignores the power of reason
For libertarians, reason allows us to make real moral choices by which our lives become properly meaningful
For Hume, reason seems to be indistinguishable from the forces of nature - everything is watered down to ‘constant conjunction’
Problem with determinism if it is true
If determinism is true, then even the discussion or consideration of determinism must be determined, this seems counter-intuitive
Problem with compatibilism if determinism is true
If determinism is true, then for a compatibilism to say that we can still perform voluntary acts - that we are free to follow our wishes - makes no sense since voluntary acts are also determined
Making a choice would not be a possibility
What is the problem with libertarianism
Most libertarian arguments claim that through physical systems are determined, the mind is somehow free
But so far, nobody has produced a convincing answer concerning how the brain manages to act freely, and exactly where and what part of the brain is involved
What is therapeutic punishment
Treatment/ punishment aimed at helping/ healing the criminal rather than being retributive/ proportional to the crime
Approach to crime as a mental condition
Accepts that there are determining factors of an individual’s life for which they either cannot be blame or blame should be limited
E.g. they may have been brought up in a domestic environment of violence - might also have a lack of education
This suggests that treatment should be theraputic, since corporal punishment may lead them to re-offending
Approaches to crime as a deliberately anti-social behaviour
A deliberate anti-social behaviour, and should be punished
This means that punishment should be carried out
- retribution: compensates the victim, allows the criminal to pay for their crime
- signifies societies’ disapproval of criminal acts, acts as a deterrent for those thinking of committing
- enforces idea of responsibility
- reform is costly and ineffective, better to compensate victims
- criminals cause harm to others and to society, society should be protected from criminals
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Hard determinism
If determinism is true, no freedom of the kind required for moral responsibility, pointless to punish criminals and reward those who don’t commit crime
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Hard determinism (religious sense)
If determinism is true, then any idea of ‘sin’ against God becomes redundant, because no one can be blamed by God for doing what their determined nature makes them do
Also means that Christianity is incoherent as it is based on the central doctrine of Jesus’ atonement for Human sin
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Hard determinism (Skinner)
Believed that his work would lead to reform of the practice of praise and blame, reward and punishment - punishing people for antisocial behaviour is not really effective as they may go back to original behaviour after punishment
Punishment also makes people resentful and aggressive
We can instead, condition people so that in the future they have no desire to harm the society, this means that they would not need punishing
Skinner’s view on reward and punishment (quote)
“It should be possible to design a world in which behaviour is likely to be punished seldom or never occurs”
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Libertarianism
Must hold people responsible for their actions: hence praise and blame, reward and punishment are needed to lead people to be morally responsible
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Libertarianism (law in the UK)
Law in the UK acknowledges diminished responsibility for a number of different types of people and situation like children, those with mental illnesses as well
Defence lawyers try to take into account
Otherwise the law punishes those who are judged guilty of the crime — their behaviour was free, not wholly determined by mental, social or environmental circumstances
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Libertarianism (Kant’s ‘ought implies can’)
‘Ought implies can’ - we feel the moral compulsion concerning what we ‘ought’ to do, suggesting that we are able/ free to do it
Our freedom is clear as seen in how we are able to feel guilt and remorse when we fail to do what we ought
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Libertarianism (punishment as retribution)
In a system where there are no laws to control behaviour, we lack external freedom as others can enforce their own choices with violence - to have external freedom, we have to live under the rule of law
If one breaks the law, then they limit other’s freedom and pushes us towards a state of nature
In response to this, society must reverse the maxim on the criminal: the maxim is ‘whatever undeserved evil you bring upon another person must be brought upon yourself’
The proper aim is therefore retribution (can’t be deterrence as it uses the criminal as a means that an end, can’t be rehabilitation because that assumes that the criminal is incapable of reason) - only retribution allows the criminal to become a rational person who is responsible for their own actions
Consequences of moral responsibility theory - Libertarianism (weakness)
If determinism is true, then libertarianism itself is another kind of determined response to moral issues
People may be conditioned to believe that they are causally determined or that they are causally free
So if a libertarian supports a type of punishment, it makes no difference since all responses are determined
Do compatibilists see themselves as morally responsible/ morally accountable and why
Compatibilists would answer the question ‘could I have done otherwise?’ With ‘yes, if I had desired to do otherwise’
They see themselves as morally responsible/ accountable because:
- their moral choices are not the results of physical restraints or coercive threats
- they wanted/ desired to act as they did despite being aware of alternative actions
Hume’s view on people being held morally responsible/ accountable for their actions
Hume argues that people are blameworthy only where our choices come from our character - people’s actions are judged only in so far as ‘… they are indications of the internal character, passions and affections.’
Punishment is to improve society, should be part of social engineering to repress anti-social behaviour; while stimulating a virtuous character
Hume’s quote on heaven and hell
“Why then would there be eternal punishment for the short-term offences of a frail creature like man? Our moral ideas come mostly from our thoughts about the interests of human society. These interests are short-term and minor; ought they to be guarded by punishments that are eternal and infinite? The eternal damnation of one man is infinitely greater evil in the universe than the overthrow of a billion kingdoms”
What does Hume think of the ultimate reward of heaven and ultimate punishment of hell
They are senseless - totally disproportionate either to human good or human evil
A problem with compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility/ reward and punishment (‘just deserts’)
‘Just deserts’ - a theory of punishment that sentencing should be proportionate to the severity to the crime
Andrew con Hirsch argued that the ‘treatment’ model of punishment should be replaced with a judicial system of sentencing the criminal according to their desert - more retributive
Compatibilism and determinism leans towards theraputic model but libertarians think that the punishment should fit the crime
Problem with compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility/ reward and punishment (incoherency)
A strong suspicion that compatibilism is incoherent
Hume’s account of ‘necessity’ as ‘constant conjunction’ is rejected by determinists and libertarians
If either determinism or the libertarians are right, then compatibilism is incoherent
