Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Morality depends on freedom. Immanuel Kant wrote that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, and so
moral actions are freely undertaken actions. Most of us believe we are autonomous, free
in all aspects to make decisions. Life is not a one way road in which we have no power
over, it is ‘a garden of forking paths’ in which we may choose to go one way or another.
David Hume describes liberty as ‘a power of acting or not acting, according to the
determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to
move, we also may’ (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). When it comes to
freedom of will, libertarians hold the position that events originate from the free agent, it
is based around the principle that he/she ‘could have done otherwise’. Plato writes in
Republic ‘Your destiny shall not be allotted to you, but you shall choose it for yourselves’.
Yet how can we be so sure that we are free? Determinists say that freedom is an illusion.
Benedict Spinoza wrote ‘Men think themselves free on account of this alone, that they
are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes of them’, what he means by this
is that just because we think we are free doesn’t mean we are. For myself, it reminds me
of Plato’s analogy of the cave, whereby the prisoners could not understand that their
lives were an illusion because they were unaware and in the same way, although we may
believe that we are free, we do not realise the question remains if this belief is a
determined belief. Has it been put into our heads? An alternative Christian view, to the
traditional Judeo-Christian acceptance of free will, is that of predestination. It is the view
that God has already decided who will be saved and who will not be and originates from
St. Paul’s letters to the Romans. The Protestant reformer John Calvin described
Predestination as ‘The eternal decree of God, by which he determined what he wished to
make of every man. For he does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains
eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others’. The idea that God decides who
receives salvation and who doesn’t at creation suggests that humans do not have free
will with regard to their moral or religious behaviour. It would seem to me that if God has
already chosen for me to be a certain way, surely I cannot battle his omnipotence, if he
has decided that I should have four children it is not possible for me to have five. In
which case it would also seem that people like Hitler are not blameworthy for the cruel
acts that he committed? Maybe this was God’s plan for him to display such evil to the
world and be damned. Are we God’s puppets? Surely this is what predestination
suggests; in fact it raises further questions as to whether there is any meaning to our
lives either. And if we cannot be in charge of the way we are, if God has already
‘ordained’ us in a certain way then why should we be punished for it? Imprisonment
would not give reformation to the one that was not meant to feel remorse; deterrence
would not be possible for those who were meant to commit murder or rape.
Hard Determinism, does not have to involve a God but does work under the requisite
belief that we have external influences controlling us. Hard determinism says that our
choices, decisions, intentions and other mental events and our actions are no more than
effects of other equally necessitated events. There is no effect without cause, and this is
an aspect that libertarians have overlooked. Determinism draws on the Newtonian view
(whose birthday it is today!) that all physical objects, living or otherwise, must exist in
accordance with natural laws. There are several prior causes which determinism
suggests as being factors in the lives that we lead, prior causes such as religio-cultural
background, socio-economic background and experience of life. One new popular
thought on prior causes is that of genetics. Many scientific investigations have led to the
case that something like obesity is a product of your genes, and scientists are now
finding that sexuality could be rooted in genetics too, with much controversy over what
has been dubbed ‘the gay gene’. If someone belonged to a religion that condemned
homosexuality but they themselves were a homosexual and this was due to the gay
gene, it is not as if they could suppress it because it is a part of them. If this were true
then they cannot be blamed for a trait that is inherent within them and could not be any
other way. They are not responsible for an action that they can’t help.
Though, Libertarianism is still not exempt from the argument of moral responsibility. Like
it has been argued that Determinism presents no moral responsibility, but what makes
Libertarianism any different, so to speak? Is it not true to say that a decision made by
random choice and uncaused is no better than one that is determined? However, the
Libertarian would argue that genuine free choice isn’t ‘uncaused’ but a product of the
self; we make our own choices based on rationality and through contemplation and
sifting through of a number of reasons. Most things in our lives where we are able to play
an active role are not left to chance. But it should be noted that these reasons and
considerations do not cause the choice. So when you ask a libertarian to explain why
they choose a certain thing, they can’t because accounting for a free act is a
contradiction. A free act should have no prior cause or explanation because freedom is
innate in every being, and they do things because they can.
Choice seems to be the deciding factor in all this. If we are forced to commit an immoral
action, then we are not blameworthy or even in committing to a moral action such as
giving to charity- if we are forced then we are not praiseworthy. When we take the choice
out of an action, morality no longer applies. We cannot blame someone for an action if
they are not free and the choice of making a moral decision is denied to them. Indeed,
we find that the law considers people who have limited control over their actions because
of extreme psychological or emotional difficulties as having ‘diminished responsibility’,
but what if, like Darrow argued, we all suffer from diminished responsibility because our
actions are determined by prior causes? Intention too, along with choice, plays an
important part. If someone is not control of their actions due to drugs, alcohol, emotional
trauma or psychological condition (diminished responsibility) then they are not entirely
morally responsible for their actions, for example, a person who has a sleep-walking
disorder and runs over a person may not be considered morally blameworthy and would
not be seen to have committed as great of a crime as a person who deliberately runs
over an innocent person.