An attempt will be made to discriminate between a compatibilist and an incompatibilist account of free will. To complete this objective, a description of determinism must first be presented. The following questions then arise: to what extent may punishment be defended, and what role it should play in these worldviews?
Determinism is defined as the idea that all events are simply the effect of a previous causal incident in combination with the laws of physics or nature. Every present and future occurrence are necessitated and could not have occurred in any other way. If it is decided that determinism is a true account of reality, then one is confronted with the issue of free will.
Free will is the question of whether rational agents exercise a freedom of control over their own actions and thoughts and thereby decisions. An individual who maintains the belief that determinism is in accordance with reality, and that rational beings do maintain control over themselves is convinced that free will is congruent with determinism, and are called compatibilists. One who believes in determinism and yet does not believe in free will is named an incompatibilist. To further articulate the differences between the two, a more in depth description will be given for each account.
The classical compatibilist view is that a person exercises free will only when the person wills an act and when other acts are capable of being done. It was classically agreed upon that a person's free will is deprived during acts of rape, imprisonment, murder, and other forms of constraint on the person's actions. This coercion overrides free will. It was also argued that even though the options for the person are restricted in these circumstances, irregardless, they still make decisions based on their own desires and preferences. Later compatibilists expanded the debate further by introducing the hierarchical mesh idea of first-order and second-order desires. All three alcoholics may have no choice in having another drink. But below that, in the second-order, one may not want to drink it, one may want to drink it, and one may not even consider the second-order desires. The basic notion is that a rational agent is capable of acting in a multitude of ways that are unpredictable to others.
Incompatibilists would say that any action taken by the rational agent was predetermined by outside forces, including genetic, neurological, and environmental reasons, the laws of nature, and past events. The main argument for the incompatibilist view is one of a causal chain. Whether a rational being can make voluntary choices or not is not the issue, but whether they are, themselves, the prime initiator of this choice. For this to be the case, then one must dismiss all of the preceding events and actions taken, and all of the reasons previously listed. The issue generated by incompatiblism with the largest impact is one over the view of responsibility and punishment.
Society holds people accountable for their actions and delivers praise or blame, except for some cases of mental retardation and psychosis. But for this to be the most appropriate way of handling punishment and reward, one must accept that people have free will. Incompatibilists find it hard to justify punishing someone who's actions were already predetermined since the birth of time. The question is one of how a person can assume moral responsibility for actions out of their immediate control. Some incompatibilists will even give the notion that the person possibly had options and made the wrong ethical choice in that present moment, but that doesn't excuse determinism from the situation. They were still forced into the situation and then many outside issues helped form the decision made. On the other hand, compatibilists say that determinism is a prerequisite for assuming moral responsibility for one's actions, otherwise the decision was governed by a random process in the central nervous system. A view that seems to reconcile both sides it that is a person is determined to act in a specific fashion due to the past and his surroundings, then punishment plants the seeds to change his future actions for the better.
Determinism is defined as the idea that all events are simply the effect of a previous causal incident in combination with the laws of physics or nature. Every present and future occurrence are necessitated and could not have occurred in any other way. If it is decided that determinism is a true account of reality, then one is confronted with the issue of free will.
Free will is the question of whether rational agents exercise a freedom of control over their own actions and thoughts and thereby decisions. An individual who maintains the belief that determinism is in accordance with reality, and that rational beings do maintain control over themselves is convinced that free will is congruent with determinism, and are called compatibilists. One who believes in determinism and yet does not believe in free will is named an incompatibilist. To further articulate the differences between the two, a more in depth description will be given for each account.
The classical compatibilist view is that a person exercises free will only when the person wills an act and when other acts are capable of being done. It was classically agreed upon that a person's free will is deprived during acts of rape, imprisonment, murder, and other forms of constraint on the person's actions. This coercion overrides free will. It was also argued that even though the options for the person are restricted in these circumstances, irregardless, they still make decisions based on their own desires and preferences. Later compatibilists expanded the debate further by introducing the hierarchical mesh idea of first-order and second-order desires. All three alcoholics may have no choice in having another drink. But below that, in the second-order, one may not want to drink it, one may want to drink it, and one may not even consider the second-order desires. The basic notion is that a rational agent is capable of acting in a multitude of ways that are unpredictable to others.
Incompatibilists would say that any action taken by the rational agent was predetermined by outside forces, including genetic, neurological, and environmental reasons, the laws of nature, and past events. The main argument for the incompatibilist view is one of a causal chain. Whether a rational being can make voluntary choices or not is not the issue, but whether they are, themselves, the prime initiator of this choice. For this to be the case, then one must dismiss all of the preceding events and actions taken, and all of the reasons previously listed. The issue generated by incompatiblism with the largest impact is one over the view of responsibility and punishment.
Society holds people accountable for their actions and delivers praise or blame, except for some cases of mental retardation and psychosis. But for this to be the most appropriate way of handling punishment and reward, one must accept that people have free will. Incompatibilists find it hard to justify punishing someone who's actions were already predetermined since the birth of time. The question is one of how a person can assume moral responsibility for actions out of their immediate control. Some incompatibilists will even give the notion that the person possibly had options and made the wrong ethical choice in that present moment, but that doesn't excuse determinism from the situation. They were still forced into the situation and then many outside issues helped form the decision made. On the other hand, compatibilists say that determinism is a prerequisite for assuming moral responsibility for one's actions, otherwise the decision was governed by a random process in the central nervous system. A view that seems to reconcile both sides it that is a person is determined to act in a specific fashion due to the past and his surroundings, then punishment plants the seeds to change his future actions for the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment