Dilemma of determinism: Difference between revisions
imported>John R. Brews (Strawson) |
imported>John R. Brews |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
|} | |} | ||
In short, if forced to choose between determinism and morality, James would | In short, if forced in some instance to choose between determinism and morality, James would settle the dilemma by sacrificing the first. | ||
Some modern thinkers have come to share Kant's view that moral judgments lie outside the reach of determinism, so the dilemma of determinism does not apply to them. | Some modern thinkers have come to share Kant's view that moral judgments lie outside the reach of determinism, so the dilemma of determinism does not apply to them. |
Revision as of 11:36, 16 October 2013
![](http://s9.addthis.com/button1-share.gif)
In philosophy the dilemma of determinism historically was posed as a moral quandary, the quandary posed by a belief that 'fate' determines everything, leaving no room for humans to make decisions about their conduct, and if that is so, no room for them to be held responsible for their conduct. A modern version of the quandary does not rely upon 'fate' as determining events, but rather the 'laws of nature' in some form or another and, as before, the 'laws of nature' determine our actions and we have the moral quandary of assigning moral responsibility.
Sometimes the dilemma is cast in a somewhat different manner, suggesting that 'fate' or the 'laws of nature' are not the sole agency for change, but that as an alternative at least some events might simply be random. That does not settle the dilemma, as humans are not responsible for random events any more than those controlled by outside agency. It does complicate the dilemma somewhat by suggesting a dichotomy of explanation, 'fate' or 'randomness', that introduces the added issue of an alternative to 'fate'. Possibly that addition was intended to account for the probabilistic nature of some laws of physics, but if so, it is a poorly phrased way of doing so. A better approach would be to say that the 'laws of nature' determine the statistical probabilities for the occurrence of events, which leaves the dilemma for morality intact without postulating a silly false dichotomy. Perhaps a broader (and more humble) view of the matter is to quote Fischer:
|
There are additional aspects of the 'dilemma of determinism' related to the psychological and social consequences of a belief in the force of the dilemma, for example, the possible paralysis of all purposive thought.[2]
Horns of a dilemma
A common description of the 'dilemma of determinism' is as a forced choice between two alternatives referred to as the 'horns' of a dilemma. This formulation has a long past, and was already used in a discussion by David Hume, who referred to it as a 'false dilemma'.[3] The 'horns of a dilemma' description has modern adherents as well:
|
Fischer also uses the 'horns of a dilemma' description, calling the two horns the 'deterministic' horn and the 'indeterministic' horn. [5] The deterministic horn is the belief that "causal determinism implies that we never have the freedom to do other than we actually do". The indeterministic horn is the belief that "if causal indeterminism is true, then an agent's choices are--in a sense to be specified--purely a matter of luck."[5] But what Fischer actually discusses is whether these two 'horns' preclude attribution of responsibility to an agent, regardless of one's choice between them. In other words, the interest in the 'horns' is not which horn to choose (which doesn't matter a whit), but the dilemma is that whichever horn is chosen it appears we must deny agent responsibility. Fischer goes on to suggest that the argument against allowance of agency has a similar structure regardless of which 'horn' is selected. There is no dilemma involved in choosing between them, but only in choosing either one, no matter which.[5]
Moral responsibility
The older formulation in terms of 'fate' predates the Stoics and their major apologist Chrysippus.[6] In a critique of Chrysippus, Plutarch proposed that responsibility implied humans had a possible influence over events, and the 'possible' necessarily must be able to occur, and cannot be 'possible' if fate denies its occurrence. The conclusion is that if 'fate' exists, then at least it is not invincible. This division into the fated and the unfated persists to this day.
Such a division was approached in the 1780's by Immanuel Kant, who had high confidence in the authority of intuition, and suggested that moral matters were to be analyzed as lying outside the rules governing material objects.[7] "There is a sharp difference between moral judgments and judgments of fact...Moral judgments ... must be a priori judgments."[8] Evidently, the dilemma of determinism is avoided under these conditions, as our moral decision processes lie outside the reach of everyday causality. "Unfortunately, not many philosophers..would be prepared today to follow Kant's way out of the dilemma of determinism."[9]
In an address titled The dilemma of determinism in 1884, William James suggested that "A common opinion prevails that the juice has ages ago been pressed out of the free‐will controversy".[10] James formulated the implications of the 'dilemma of determinism' for moral responsibility like this:[11]
- 1. Either causal determinism is true, or it is false.
- 2. If it is true, then I am compelled to act as I do, and am not morally responsible for my actions.
- 3. If it is false, then how I act is random, and I am again not morally responsible for my acts.
Therefore,
- 4. I am not morally responsible for my actions.
This syllogism is sometimes called the classical formulation of the free will problem.[12]
James went on to argue that this syllogism argues against acceptance of the dilemma, because moral responsibility is a fact of life that cannot be abandoned. Just as did Plutarch, James posited that events fall into two groups: the causally determined and the rest.
|
In short, if forced in some instance to choose between determinism and morality, James would settle the dilemma by sacrificing the first.
Some modern thinkers have come to share Kant's view that moral judgments lie outside the reach of determinism, so the dilemma of determinism does not apply to them.
- "We sometimes have to look at ourselves as physical objects, particularly when we try to explaim our actions in terms of the laws of science, such as psychology. But we sometimes also have to look at ourselves as free conscious beings, particularly when we try to understand ourselves as beings who act in the world. Determinism, then, is not a feature of the world. It is a feature of one way of looking at ourselves..."[13]
- —Manuel Velasquez: From his discussion of Kant in Philosophy, p. 211
Steven Pinker has made such a division:
- "The faculty with which we ponder the world has no ability to peer inside itself or our other faculties to see what makes them tick.": [14]
- —Steven Pinker: How the Mind Works, p. 4
- "Science is guaranteed to appear to eat eat away at the will, regardless of what it finds, because the scientific mode of explanation cannot accommodate the mysterious notion of uncaused causation that undermines the will. If scientists wanted to show people had free will, what would they look for? Some random neural event that the rest of the brain amplifies into a signal triggering behavior? But a random event does not fit the concept of free will any more than a lawful one does, and could not serve as the long-sought locus of moral responsibility.
- "Either we dispense with all morality as an unscientific superstition, or we find a way to reconcile causation...with responsibility and free will." "Science and morality are separate spheres of reasoning. Only by recognizing them as separate can we have them both." [14]
- —Steven Pinker: How the Mind Works, pp. 54 -55
A similar division between the scientific or 'theoretical' explanation of the behavior of objects and the arena of human decision is proposed by Bok:
- "The word 'determined' is here deliberately ambiguous...Theoretical reason is concerned to provide causal explanations of events. If we interpret claims about the ways in which something is determined as theoretical claims, we must interpret 'determined' as 'caused', since causation is the type of determination to which theoretical explanations appeal...the claim that persons are free while objects are not must mean that there is some difference in kind between the causes of our choices and actions and those of the behavior of other objects...As long as we regard ourselves as objects of theoretical reasoning...we will be unable to resolve the problem of freedom of the will."[15]
- —Hilary Bok: Freedom and Responsibility, pp.199-203
In effect, these explanations separate moral responsibility and the intuitive experience of free will from the domain of the 'laws of nature'. These philosophers are attacking a position that includes what is sometimes called the mind-brain identity hypothesis,[16] the idea that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain. Such explanations are not universally accepted.
There are philosophers that attempt to leave human decision making within the realm of scientific explanation, but claim that moral responsibility does not actually require the ability to enforce our decisions, which remain determined by natural law. One such position was expressed by Zeno:
- "The story goes that Zeno was flogging a slave for stealing. “I was fated to steal”, said the slave. “And to be flogged”, was Zeno's reply" [17]
- —Anthony Gottlieb: The Dream of Reason: A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance, p. 317
There exist many subtle and complicated arguments to reconcile responsibility while asserting the claims of science, and all are debated.[5][12] They depend upon elaborate refinements in definitions and reinterpretations of subjective experience. Still others simply deny that humans have any capacity to make decisions at all, and the impression that we can is simply illusory.[18][19]
References
- ↑ John Martin Fischer (July 2005). "Dennett on the basic argument". Metaphilosophy 36: 427-435.
- ↑ Galen Strawson (2010). “Phenomenology, commitment and what might happen”, Freedom and belief, Revised. Oxford University Press, p. 88. ISBN 0199247498. and Galen Strawson (2012). “Chapter 5: On "Freedom and Resentment"”, Michael McKenna and Paul Russell. eds: Free will and reactive attitudes: perspectives on PF Strawson's "Freedom and Resentment". Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp. 85 ff. ISBN 1409485870.
- ↑ Paul Russell (1995). Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. Oxford University Press, p. 51. ISBN 0198025548. “one aspect of Hume's strategy is to reveal that the dilemma of determinism, presented as an alternative between horns A [chance] and C [metaphysical necessity] is a false dilemma...[based upon] confusion about the nature of necessity.”
- ↑ Paul Russell (1995). Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. Oxford University Press, p. 14. ISBN 0198025548.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 John Martin Fischer (2011). “Chapter 4: Indeterminism and control: An approach to the problem of luck”, Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues. Oxford University Press, pp. 41-60. ISBN 019959984X. Also published in John Martin Fischer (2012). “Chapter 6: Indeterminism and control: An approach to the problem of luck”, Deep Control: Essays on Free Will and Value. Oxford University Press, pp. 85 ff. ISBN 0199742987. On-line version available from University of Oklahoma.
- ↑ Susanne Bobzien (1998). “Introduction”, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, pp. 11 ff. ISBN 0198237944.
- ↑ R Kevin Hill (2003). “Chapter 7: The critique of morality: The three pillars of Kantian ethics”, Nietzsche's Critiques : The Kantian Foundations of His Thought, Paperback, pp. 196-201. ISBN 0199285527.
- ↑ Herbert James Paton (1971). “§2 Moral judgements are a priori”, The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 20. ISBN 0812210239.
- ↑ See the discussion of Kant's views in Patrick Suppes (1993). “§4 Irrelevance of physical determinism”, Models and Methods in the Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays. Springer, pp. 479-480. ISBN 0792322118.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 An address to Harvard Divinity School students in Divinity Hall on March 13, 1884: William James (1886). “The dilemma of determinism”, The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, Reprint. Longmans, Green, and Company, pp. 145 ff. On-line text here
- ↑ As presented by John Martin Fischer (2011). “§4.1 The dilemma of determinism”, Michael Freeman, ed: Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues. Oxford University Press, 41 ff. ISBN 019959984X. On-line version found here.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 McKenna, Michael (Oct 5, 2009). Edward N. Zalta, ed:Compatibilism: §1.5 The free will problem. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition).
- ↑ Manuel Velasquez (2012). “§3.7 Is freedom real”, Philosophy, 12th. Cengage Learning, p. 211. ISBN 1133612105.
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Steven Pinker (2009). How The Mind Works, Paperback reissue. W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 54 -55. ISBN 0393334775.
- ↑ Hilary Bok (1998). Freedom and Responsibility. Princeton University Press. ISBN 069101566X.
- ↑ J. J. C. Smart (May 18, 2007). Edward N. Zalta (ed.):The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition).
- ↑ Anthony Gottlieb (2010). The Dream of Reason: A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 317. ISBN 0393339637.
- ↑ J. J. C. Smart (July 1961). "Free-Will, Praise and Blame". Mind 70 (279): 293-4. On-line version here. This article argues that our moral choices must be either determined or a matter of chance, and there is no third possibility. It is an argument against 'contra-causal freedom' as proposed by Charles Arthur Campbell.
- ↑ Kadri Vihvelin (Mar 1, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed.:Arguments for Incompatibilism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition).