What would a largely deterministic society look and behave like?
Would it be, as some imagine, a more merciful and just society, or as some others suppose,
a veritable wasteland where lawless immorality, cruelty, and hopelessness reign supreme.
As I have been reading and listening to various individuals this has been a question which
has been on my mind.
Of course, as determinism will be our subject there is no avoiding the topic of free will;
so let us sin bravely and let loose the dogs of philosophic warfare.
Part of the difficulty with such subjects is often the semantics involved so as per
our course I will first state and clarify what I mean when I say “Determinism” and
“free-will” respectively.
I call determinism that doctrine which holds true that all things are causally determined
by their proper causes.
I would like to make very clear here that the determinism of which I speak is a determinism
of means rather than one of ends.
This distinction is important because it maintains that “infinite occurrences of the past are
not slowly and persistently moving toward some distant immutable end.”
For example, though I have read The Republic of Plato and took much away from it, Plato
did not produce the work so that I could read it yesterday and subsequently explain this
to you today.
This is the case even though we can reliably say that my reading the book and subsequent
use of it in this example would not have been possible if the act of him writing it as well
as all the intervening events had not taken place.
With this hopefully clarified let us move on to the definition which we will attribute
to free-will.
I hold that free will is that feeling that we, meaning our conscious mind, are the source
of our conscious volitions; that we can think or do what we want in the present independent
of prior causation, known or unknown.
It is that intuition that if we could go back to a particular moment of the past, without
the knowledge that we were doing so of course, then we could think, choose, and behave differently
than we had the first time.
For example, on December 15th, 2021 when I spent the entire day sitting on the couch,
I feel that it could have been a day spent hiking outside even though the chain of events
leading up to that particular decision remained unchanged.
Now, with these semantics out of the way, let’s move on to our question, does determinism,
and in consequence the absence of free-will, rob the human experience of all moral value
and therefore as a result create apathetic moral monsters?
Stated simply, no, I do not believe it does and I think to explain why I believe this
to be true it would be best to begin by stating the objections or concerns regarding determinism
and then addressing them accordingly.
First then there is the problem of crime and general debauchery.
If those who commit crimes are “not responsible” for their actions then why punish them, why
not just allow them to continue on with their lives.
The answer to this conundrum is surprisingly rather simple and clear, we separate them
from society because society and all its denizens are better off that way.
A mountain lion is still a mountain lion, and though we understand that it is only behaving
as its nature and past experiences demand, we still remove it when it becomes a danger
to society at large.
Again a mountain lion is still a mountain lion and will eat you, and a murderer is still
a murderer and will murder you.
One may even argue that determinism makes for a greater moral character.
Let me explain why, with a determinate view we understand that criminals are simply unlucky
to have been born with the mind of and raised surrounded by circumstances which have led
to their becoming a criminal.
With this understanding we may remove any justification for hate or vengeance and become
more compassionate to those unlucky enough to have been born and developed into something
which cannot co-exist with the society which surrounds them.
We can truly forgive those who have wronged us and in doing so focus more clearly on what
would truly benefit society; things such as mitigating harm, risk assessment, deterring
crime, and ultimately human wellbeing.
In addition we might finally come to forgive ourselves for what wrongs we have committed
either to ourselves or against others.
All of this may initially sound absurd and would be extremely difficult if it is you
or a loved one that is the victim of these individuals.
Though I do believe we should not make decisions in such a passionate state, it is for this
very reason why we don’t allow the family to prosecute the individual who has done them
wrong.
Instead when our minds are clear and dispassionate this is the place from which public policy
should arise.
Our second common objection arises out of, in my opinion, the confusion between fatalism
and determinism.
The concern being that if there is no free will then why do or strive for anything, why
not just wait around for things to take place?
This is ultimately a concern regarding choice or lack thereof.
The proposed answer to this objection may seem paradoxical at first, but stick with
me, and I hope that it will become clear enough.
It is because even while lacking free-will our choices matter because they are in fact
what causes our conscious actions, and regardless of if our actions are determined by prior
causes they continue to play a key role in our and others lives.
This fact is likely uncomfortable, but self-evident.
Let us look a bit closer at the nature of choice and consciousness.
Like most everything dealing with difficult subjects I think an example will help to ascertain
a starting point from which we can then clarify further.
Say that I am tasked with choosing any fictional character that I want.
Let’s choose Siegfried, the hero of the Nibelungenlied.
Now let us ask ourselves a question, why did we not choose Gilgamesh, the ancient king
of Uruk?
To understand this let’s look to what happens when we are initially directed to complete
this task.
When we are given the task I am sure that a myriad of fictional characters arrived on
the margins of your consciousness.
My point here is that we have no control over which will arrive, to have control over this
would require us to think about them before we thought about them and this is absurd.
We simply cannot pick which fictional character before it picks itself.
Even if we could repeat this task over and over again, without the knowledge of our previous
attempts, we would still fail to choose Gilgamesh over and over again.
This example shows, I hope clearly enough, that we are but the witnesses of our choices.
With each decision their lies an underlying mystery from which these very decisions spring
forth.
And without the power to control our next thought or prevent it from occurring, our
will is not, in my estimation, “free”.
I have thoroughly enjoyed researching and contemplating this topic, but I would like
to state a few important things before closing out this video.
First I am continuing to develop my own views on this subject, whether or not these views
which have been stated here are final I cannot say, but I am looking forward to understanding
where you stand regarding this subject, so be sure to comment so myself and others can
broaden our perspective regarding the eternal war between determinism and free-will.
Second, I am not completely convinced that all would be better off believing as I do
and do not consider it part of my task to overcome them.
Perhaps burning down another’s house without any satisfactory dwelling to give them as
recompense is unwise and dangerous to one’s personal well-being.
And Lastly, I would like to thank all of you who have made the effort to actively listen
and understand as far as is possible to what I have to say.
If you find topics such as these intriguing then I would be more than willing to expand
on it in future videos.
And as always, thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.