"It
is unthinkable to me that a living being can be compelled to move by
something outside of itself. Influenced, certainly. Threatened,
certainly. But utterly dominated to the extent that it is no longer
separate from that which would control it? This is surely
impossible."
Is it really that
impossible? A few weeks ago in the Philosophy Takeaway there was an
article on "Twelve Years a Slave" where the author seems to
complain that the slaves did not stand up for themselves, to free
themselves from the tyranny that was their existence, that they had a
choice but failed to take it. Whilst this is all very well said, I
don't believe that many did have a choice - for many it was either
get on with life as it was or get beaten or killed, mauled by dogs as
they tried to escape, whipped if they attempted to express creativity
through writing, genocide for those that planned an overthrow of any
kind.
Biologically we are
predetermined not to put ourselves at deaths door (of course there
are always exceptions to the rule which we will go into later). I
assume the level of fear for these people kept them down, they did
not have a choice - the ones who did rise up, what made them do this?
Was it simply a choice one day? Or was it something that made them
snap, that caused them to do this?
You put your hand in a hot
oven. Your biological reaction (determined) is to remove your hand as
soon as possible, you do not physically have time to think of a
reaction, the person in themselves makes no choice - it is
determined. Only if that person in themselves has trained themselves
to not react - (what we must look at is the reason they trained
themselves to do this) do they not remove their hand from the oven -
only if they are determined not to. The very phrase 'determined to do
something' in itself implies choice, a decision - but a decision does
not just pop out of nowhere - even the smallest one. The burning
protesting monks are determined to make a point, but what
socio-political-religious beliefs have contributed to them doing
this? If that monk had all his memories removed, was put into a
different body, even had a different brain - would he still burn
himself? I don't think so. It seems you have an idea of a sense of
self that is more like a soul, a mind, as you put - free will. Where
is this free will, how is it independent to our biological functions,
to our memories, emotions, reactions, relationships?
In
your second point you claim "deterministic
theories are often used to take away responsibility from certain
groups in society"
and go on to say that this cultivates failure Surely here you are
allowing for determinism itself, you are saying that our actions are
determined by determinism itself. There is a round circle of cause
and effect. You are claiming the point you are trying so hard to
argue against. You are saying people are forced to take welfare, when
in your opinion we all have free choice - thus contradicting
yourself.
In order to say whether
determinism negates responsibility we must first derive what
responsibility is. As far as I can tell responsibility is a feeling,
a feeling of ownership - "I am responsible for what happens on
my deals at work" - which can turn into feelings of guilt "I
feel responsible that I knocked that old lady over" or feelings
of happiness "I feel responsible for putting a smile on my
child's face." If this is the case then determinism in no way
negates responsibility, it creates it through cause and effect - if
we did not have these - then we wouldn't have the emotions, the
feelings that come with responsibility. But what about those pesky
criminals I hear you ask? Are they not just victims to their
circumstances? Of course this is one logical conclusion. But if we
stop locking people up, stop punishing people as they couldn't help
it then there would be bloody murder. Responsibility has evolved to
protect society, locking people up is supposedly a deterrent, it is
meant to rehabilitate those that could not see how their actions
affect people and trying to cause them to next time look at the
affects. I'm not saying it always works or is a good system - but
these at least are the aims.
"The
fact that there are people from privileged backgrounds who rally
against such privilege, the late Tony Benn being a prime example,
indicates that we can never remove the individual's reaction to their
surroundings from the equation; we can always reject our surroundings
once we are mature enough to do so. As much as we are influenced by
our surroundings so too can we influence them in turn."
How is this maturity
determined? The fact that someone goes against their background does
not imply a sudden change of free will. One does not simply change
one’s mind one day, there must have been factors that made him do
so. Those who believe in determinism are not saying that things will
never change, that every day will be the same, that because things
are the way they are there is no escape, that there will never be a
chain of events that cause us to develop as a society in one way or
another. The woman who leaves her abusive husband does not just
choose to leave him because she decided to, she does so because she
has finally had enough, that he has done something that has gone too
far, that her friends or family have convinced her, or quite simply
she has reached her level of tolerance.
People do surprise us
however - people moving up either financially, in society,
spiritually, artistically, intellectually, and so on. A genius (which
you have claimed is proof against determinism) is always an
intellectual surprise. You account for this as free will, a
determinist will account for this as the fact that we don't know all
the facts. You take the case that if there is an increase in
unemployment an increase in robbery will follow. This is a well known
statistic, but of course we cannot just say our actions are
determined but also our opinions. Not only is there a circular
determinate that this will possibly give people more of an idea, more
of a belief that this an option for them - causing them to do it; as
a society we will be surprised by the exceptions to the rule as we
have been determined to believe this. These exceptions may feel
themselves to have other choices; they may just feel themselves to
choose not to. But dig deeper and ask why has this person come to the
conclusion that they can do something else, and why am I surprised by
that. There are many ideas we have to take time to rationally
consider and throw out, if we have the opportunity/capacity/are
inclined to do this.
Another point is that we do
not know everything yet - to make a completely correct statistical
judgment of what is going to happen in the future you need all the
facts of every possible situation. At this point in time this seems
like an impossibility - but once we called the weather God's will,
and now we are getting closer and closer to predicting what it will
do next.
Even if free will does
exist - you have admitted that interactions can influence people. If
we were not to encroach on anybody's liberties then we would not have
relationships at all, nobody would ever do anything as they'd be
worried how it would affect someone else. With determinism, yes you
are part of one big stinking whole, bad things happen, good things
happen - it does not mean we should just sit in bed and go well
whatever happens, happens. We are part of something; our actions mean
something, even if they are not chosen. We are still conscious, this
consciousness is just made up of lots of things that have happened to
us, that have determined our hopes, our dreams, our limits and our
responsibilities. They will inflict (hopefully positively) on the
consciousness of others. We should ride the waves of cause and effect
and if you're that way inclined, hopefully put our own mark on the
world that causes it to be a better place.
Rhiannon
Whiting
