Some theories of free will and determinism make a distinction between different parts of the “self” involved in making decisions or choices (for example, the will, will power, the springs of your actions, the internal psychological motivations for your actions, or the hereditary or family background you have. Compare and contrast a hard determinist and a soft determinist (compatibilist) on these parts of the decision and choice process. Summarize their views, then answer the following questions:
- Think of an example decision or choice you have had to make.
- Do you feel that your will (what you want to do) correlated well with your genuine intentions, desires, and motivations?
- Were there times when you do not end up doing what “you” would really choose to do?
Hard determinism posits that every decision we as people take was most influenced by our background, our history, our genetics, and our environment. From a hard determinist perspective, nearly every action is considered unfree in that it occurred as consequence of various factors, not solely the will of the individual in question. Soft determinism, a compatibilist perspective, attempts to reconcile determinism with the existence of free will. Soft determinism, while accepting that determinism is very real and that factors such as background significantly influence our paths, not all actions are unfree. Indeed, some actions are unfree, but free actions are distinct because they are actions performed based on internal motivations during a psychological state where the individual is in full control. In other words, these actions are not the result of coercion or a mental condition. Under soft determinism, even with determinism influencing us, humans retain the freedom to take a different path should they so choose. The purpose of soft determinism in reconciling aspects of hard determinism with the existence of will and freedom is to retain our conceptions of morality, that individuals still are, in most cases, responsible and made praiseworthy or blameworthy for their actions at the end of the day.
When it comes to any philosophical question, particularly this one, it is always appropriate to consider the question within the context of our own past experiences. So, considering the merits of hard determinist and soft determinist/compatibilist arguments, it is best to draw on our memories of past decisions, applying these views to those memories to compare and contrast them.
Now, for those of us who grew up with siblings, I’m sure as part of sibling rivalry we have all faced moral dilemmas, particularly those that concerned the distribution of blame for wrongdoing. It was always desirable to succeed in getting a sibling to take the blame instead of oneself. One specific instance I recall is when my older brother and I accidentally damaged a decorative sculpture in our house. I was aware that the morally correct thing to do would be to share the blame with my brother, but when it came time to tell my mother, I did my best to shift it all to him and absolve myself of any wrongdoing. I had the choice to do otherwise, but out of self interest, my young self went with what would be considered the ‘wrong’ option.
With a strong enough will, however, I believe that any individual can force themselves to choose rightly and in line with their moral beliefs. Factors may influence their decision making, but at the end of the day, I think we all have agency, just as I did in that situation.