An Argument for Determinism...
I have taken both of the seperate parts of the essays and put them together to form my new essay. (It is also edited.) Please feel free to comment, although since I've already turned it into my PHIL professor I probably won't make any changes.
The word ‘determinism’ summarizes a very concrete idea: everything in life is determined to happen; my life is not planned so much as the forces of my situation bring me to do certain things. What could possibly make determinism not a threat to free will? The very definitions of the two ideas are contradictory; humanity cannot have free will along with determinism. Determinism is probably true; however, I will prove that people should not worry about determinism to save their mental and physical health.
First, I must define determinism. Ted Honderich, in the book How Free are You?, outlines determinism as a theory asserting that with everything in the world being in one state, this outlined summation of causes can only create certain specific events (8 Honderich). This idea is inherently logical and scientific; if the summation of causes was such that certain causes did not lead to certain events, everything would be random causes, and nothing could be explained. Many physical laws of nature are based upon this very concept: throw an apple up, and it will come down due to the force of gravity, the apple being thrown on the surface of the earth, and all of the other causes that led to the event of the apple falling downwards. However, it is the second part of determinism that has people resisting; Honderich says that “we may be worried by our choices being effects, or, as some say ominously, just effects” (8). Everything leading up to a choice is the summation of causes, and the choice itself is merely an event; two events could not come from a single cause, so there is no possibility of multiple choices being available to the decision-maker. A life is a summation of causes: as people grow up, their personalities are molded by their surroundings and the events that influence them, and possibly even the formation of their brain when they were born to give them a certain temperament; no person is even remotely independent from their surroundings. Many would say that humans seem a bit more functionally complicated than simply having certain reactions to their environment, as they act unpredictably at times. Any person who has dated a woman will attest to this. However, at the smallest level, humans are merely a collection of reactions that are stimuli-response in nature, like an amoeba. If a person swung a bat at my head, I would duck, no doubt about it-this is an instinctual reaction, purely stimuli-response. If I was given a choice between an apple and an orange, however, my personality, past experiences with the fruit, and current mood created by neurons in my brain would make that decision for me. On the most basic level, this complex-looking situation is merely stimuli-response. In the sense that our environment causes our actions, we have no free will to make choices-humans simply choose and act in a certain manner, decided by their surroundings.
Defining choice would also be beneficial to my argument, showing that people do not have the freedom of choice. I define free choice as the ability to choose that which I do not want. Choosing to do something you do not want to do might seem logically impossible-I might not wish to perform an action for my own sake, but I could perform that for others, or to prove a point. Ted Honderich defines free choice as “one that was voluntary, and hence consistent with determinism’s being true” (156). However, I disagree with this definition-with determinism, I do not believe free choice exists. Both options must exist as possibly outcomes for choice to be free; every person who disagrees with determinism wishes to have the ability to choose otherwise. Voluntariness, not acting against one’s will, might be a factor of an action, but I define choice specifically as something someone decides when given two options, both of which they are able to choose freely. The element of voluntariness does serve to lift the worry surrounding determinism, an argument I will build later, but this does not prove that free choice exists.
There is no use in wanting the situation to be different. Nobody can ever change the fact that mental events are merely the result of a physical summation of causes. If a man were to wish for the power of being invisible, everybody would see this man as foolish. Everybody would know that no matter how much or how long this man wished to become invisible, it would not happen. Yet if determinism is true, wishing for the freedom of choice is just as foolish as the wish for invisibility. No matter how much I wish for the freedom to choose, I will never gain this ability. Therefore, in my opinion, the freedom to choose is something that people should not worry about; wishing for something beyond our mortal control is inadvisable at best, automatically futile in every sense of the word.
Additionally, the wish for the freedom to choose is unnecessary; people do not need to want this freedom, due to the fact that they act voluntarily. In order to better illustrate this point, I will present two scenarios. In one scenario, a woman is sitting in a chair. She has a small computer chip implanted into her brain, which is wired to her body, so that her body might be controlled by remote control. The person in charge of her body makes her stand up and walk across the room to open a window. Her mental events, however, are untouched by the chip and are free from control, so her body is moving against her will. Obviously, she is not free. In a similar scenario, possibly in an alternate dimension, the same woman is in the same room in the same chair; she decides the room is stuffy, and goes across the room to open the window. The physical aspect of the two scenarios comes out to the same exact thing: the motion of moving across the room in open a window. However, most people would definitely prefer the scenario sans remote control. Most people would justify this preference by pointing out that the woman who did not have a chip in her brain made the choice to cross the room. Of course, that statement does not take determinism into perspective. If determinism is true, then the woman did not have another choice. Due to circumstances being what they were, nothing else would have happened; the woman would have crossed the room regardless. If determinism is true, then the woman did not honestly have a choice, if we define choice as the possibility that the woman really could have done more than one action. As I look at the two scenarios, the only difference I see is that the second woman performed the action voluntarily, without mental resistance. In this aspect, many people seem to treasure voluntariness. If a gun is held up to a person’s head as coercion to do something, her actions as a result are not voluntary, and she would resent the situation. Since a person cannot fight against determinism, the best thing for that person to do in order to preserve their mental happiness is to accept determinism. As long as a person feels as though they are voluntarily choosing, even if in reality they do not have the freedom of choice, then this is compatible to living a good life.
Many philosophers and students of philosophy would look at that argument and give the general cry of ‘internalism!’ Internalism is, of course, the idea that the only events that matter are the ones that happen mentally. There are many wise arguments against internalism, represented in the ‘Experience Machine’ scenario. The Experience Machine, outlined by Robert Nozick in the book Anarchy, State and Utopia, is a machine with which I could program a few years of my life then live them out while simply being hooked up to the machine. These years would be completely safe, and I would live a very nice life while on the machine-but would I truly be happy? Nozick says that people want to actually do certain things, not just have the experience of action; as a people, we crave the reality of relationships instead of just having the mental event of marrying someone, or getting a friend (43). The argument for the machine is basically one of internalism-again, the argument that the only things that matter happen inside our heads; internalism is a widely rejected idea. However, I do not propose that humanity forget about determinism; rather, I would say that internalism applied to determinism would be ideal. Upon learning about determinism, a person would also learn that they cannot change it; like those who watched the man wishing for invisibility, this person would know that wishing for freedom of choice cannot accomplish anything. While we should not wish for freedom of choice, we could easily content ourselves by accepting that in normal situations, nobody acts against their will. Voluntariness, not freedom, is an ideal towards which people should strive. I will not ignore or dismiss determinism, as I reject the idea that ignorance is bliss, but I will endeavor to not worry about it, as it will not alter anything except my happiness. All that matters is that I act voluntarily; this is internalism, but that is alright, for not everything dealing with internalism is false. Although internalism fails in many situations, such as the Experience Machine, it succeeds for accepting determinism.
For some, fighting against the system is its own reward; however, if the system is determinism, denying it will not disprove its existence and obsessing over how humanity is not truly free has no positive outcome. Hopefully, this essay has proven that while determinism does probably exist, worrying about it fails to be useful, and is detrimental to a person’s mental health. Or, to summarize in Bobby McFerrin’s words: “Don’t worry-be happy.”
Works Cited
Honderich, Ted. How Free Are You? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Determinism: A Background Reality
The word ‘determinism’ summarizes a very concrete idea: everything in life is determined to happen; my life is not planned so much as the forces of my situation bring me to do certain things. What could possibly make determinism not a threat to free will? The very definitions of the two ideas are contradictory; humanity cannot have free will along with determinism. Determinism is probably true; however, I will prove that people should not worry about determinism to save their mental and physical health.
First, I must define determinism. Ted Honderich, in the book How Free are You?, outlines determinism as a theory asserting that with everything in the world being in one state, this outlined summation of causes can only create certain specific events (8 Honderich). This idea is inherently logical and scientific; if the summation of causes was such that certain causes did not lead to certain events, everything would be random causes, and nothing could be explained. Many physical laws of nature are based upon this very concept: throw an apple up, and it will come down due to the force of gravity, the apple being thrown on the surface of the earth, and all of the other causes that led to the event of the apple falling downwards. However, it is the second part of determinism that has people resisting; Honderich says that “we may be worried by our choices being effects, or, as some say ominously, just effects” (8). Everything leading up to a choice is the summation of causes, and the choice itself is merely an event; two events could not come from a single cause, so there is no possibility of multiple choices being available to the decision-maker. A life is a summation of causes: as people grow up, their personalities are molded by their surroundings and the events that influence them, and possibly even the formation of their brain when they were born to give them a certain temperament; no person is even remotely independent from their surroundings. Many would say that humans seem a bit more functionally complicated than simply having certain reactions to their environment, as they act unpredictably at times. Any person who has dated a woman will attest to this. However, at the smallest level, humans are merely a collection of reactions that are stimuli-response in nature, like an amoeba. If a person swung a bat at my head, I would duck, no doubt about it-this is an instinctual reaction, purely stimuli-response. If I was given a choice between an apple and an orange, however, my personality, past experiences with the fruit, and current mood created by neurons in my brain would make that decision for me. On the most basic level, this complex-looking situation is merely stimuli-response. In the sense that our environment causes our actions, we have no free will to make choices-humans simply choose and act in a certain manner, decided by their surroundings.
Defining choice would also be beneficial to my argument, showing that people do not have the freedom of choice. I define free choice as the ability to choose that which I do not want. Choosing to do something you do not want to do might seem logically impossible-I might not wish to perform an action for my own sake, but I could perform that for others, or to prove a point. Ted Honderich defines free choice as “one that was voluntary, and hence consistent with determinism’s being true” (156). However, I disagree with this definition-with determinism, I do not believe free choice exists. Both options must exist as possibly outcomes for choice to be free; every person who disagrees with determinism wishes to have the ability to choose otherwise. Voluntariness, not acting against one’s will, might be a factor of an action, but I define choice specifically as something someone decides when given two options, both of which they are able to choose freely. The element of voluntariness does serve to lift the worry surrounding determinism, an argument I will build later, but this does not prove that free choice exists.
There is no use in wanting the situation to be different. Nobody can ever change the fact that mental events are merely the result of a physical summation of causes. If a man were to wish for the power of being invisible, everybody would see this man as foolish. Everybody would know that no matter how much or how long this man wished to become invisible, it would not happen. Yet if determinism is true, wishing for the freedom of choice is just as foolish as the wish for invisibility. No matter how much I wish for the freedom to choose, I will never gain this ability. Therefore, in my opinion, the freedom to choose is something that people should not worry about; wishing for something beyond our mortal control is inadvisable at best, automatically futile in every sense of the word.
Additionally, the wish for the freedom to choose is unnecessary; people do not need to want this freedom, due to the fact that they act voluntarily. In order to better illustrate this point, I will present two scenarios. In one scenario, a woman is sitting in a chair. She has a small computer chip implanted into her brain, which is wired to her body, so that her body might be controlled by remote control. The person in charge of her body makes her stand up and walk across the room to open a window. Her mental events, however, are untouched by the chip and are free from control, so her body is moving against her will. Obviously, she is not free. In a similar scenario, possibly in an alternate dimension, the same woman is in the same room in the same chair; she decides the room is stuffy, and goes across the room to open the window. The physical aspect of the two scenarios comes out to the same exact thing: the motion of moving across the room in open a window. However, most people would definitely prefer the scenario sans remote control. Most people would justify this preference by pointing out that the woman who did not have a chip in her brain made the choice to cross the room. Of course, that statement does not take determinism into perspective. If determinism is true, then the woman did not have another choice. Due to circumstances being what they were, nothing else would have happened; the woman would have crossed the room regardless. If determinism is true, then the woman did not honestly have a choice, if we define choice as the possibility that the woman really could have done more than one action. As I look at the two scenarios, the only difference I see is that the second woman performed the action voluntarily, without mental resistance. In this aspect, many people seem to treasure voluntariness. If a gun is held up to a person’s head as coercion to do something, her actions as a result are not voluntary, and she would resent the situation. Since a person cannot fight against determinism, the best thing for that person to do in order to preserve their mental happiness is to accept determinism. As long as a person feels as though they are voluntarily choosing, even if in reality they do not have the freedom of choice, then this is compatible to living a good life.
Many philosophers and students of philosophy would look at that argument and give the general cry of ‘internalism!’ Internalism is, of course, the idea that the only events that matter are the ones that happen mentally. There are many wise arguments against internalism, represented in the ‘Experience Machine’ scenario. The Experience Machine, outlined by Robert Nozick in the book Anarchy, State and Utopia, is a machine with which I could program a few years of my life then live them out while simply being hooked up to the machine. These years would be completely safe, and I would live a very nice life while on the machine-but would I truly be happy? Nozick says that people want to actually do certain things, not just have the experience of action; as a people, we crave the reality of relationships instead of just having the mental event of marrying someone, or getting a friend (43). The argument for the machine is basically one of internalism-again, the argument that the only things that matter happen inside our heads; internalism is a widely rejected idea. However, I do not propose that humanity forget about determinism; rather, I would say that internalism applied to determinism would be ideal. Upon learning about determinism, a person would also learn that they cannot change it; like those who watched the man wishing for invisibility, this person would know that wishing for freedom of choice cannot accomplish anything. While we should not wish for freedom of choice, we could easily content ourselves by accepting that in normal situations, nobody acts against their will. Voluntariness, not freedom, is an ideal towards which people should strive. I will not ignore or dismiss determinism, as I reject the idea that ignorance is bliss, but I will endeavor to not worry about it, as it will not alter anything except my happiness. All that matters is that I act voluntarily; this is internalism, but that is alright, for not everything dealing with internalism is false. Although internalism fails in many situations, such as the Experience Machine, it succeeds for accepting determinism.
For some, fighting against the system is its own reward; however, if the system is determinism, denying it will not disprove its existence and obsessing over how humanity is not truly free has no positive outcome. Hopefully, this essay has proven that while determinism does probably exist, worrying about it fails to be useful, and is detrimental to a person’s mental health. Or, to summarize in Bobby McFerrin’s words: “Don’t worry-be happy.”
Works Cited
Honderich, Ted. How Free Are You? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
posted by D. K. Smith | 4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home