The Concept of Free Will: Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism
The theories of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism center around the notion of free will and the question of whether individuals can make free choices or their freedom are restricted by forces beyond their control. Determinism claims that all events and actions are predetermined, and people have no free will and cannot choose their path in life. Compatibilism is based on a theory that the concept of free will is compatible with determinism. All events are caused, but some actions are the result of internal motivation rather than external influences. When faced with no external restraints, people are free to exercise their will. The theory of libertarianism perceives the universe as a series of events entirely formed by people’s actions, with people’s choices being the only thing that shapes the world around them. All people have free will and are fully able to make their own decisions.
The main question connected with the theories of free will is their relation to the concept of moral responsibility. If all human actions are predetermined, so are moral choices, which implies that people are not morally responsible for their actions. And if all events are caused by free will, it means that people are morally responsible even for the events that lie beyond their control and happen by pure coincidence (Fischer, 2005). My position on this matter lies somewhere between these three theories. I think that although all events are caused before they happen there is room for exercising one’s free will, which can be either rational or random and spontaneous. People should be responsible for their decisions if they are made consciously.
Ethical Theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant
The ethics theory developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle is based on the concept of virtues, which are dispositions to act in the right manner. Virtues are not innate but acquired by practice and training, with people who are regarded as virtuous setting the example (Graham, 2004). Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher of the Enlightenment, developed another ethics theory called categorical imperative, a moral law that is unconditional regardless of the motive and result of one’s actions. Kant argues that the moral value of actions is determined by the principle of duty, which cannot be changed depending on the context. Kant claims that decisions should only be made rationally because moral beliefs cannot be grounded on people’s inclinations, feelings, and desires (Graham, 2004). I believe that Aristotle’s theory is more plausible. Kant’s theory implies that people have to behave mechanically even in situations where empathy and careful consideration is required, while Aristotle’s theory accounts for people’s feelings and emotions. On the other hand, Aristotle’s approach raises the question of ‘virtuousness’, claiming that one should behave like virtuous people but not specifying what people can be regarded as virtuous.
Perceptions of ‘Self’
Rene Descartes, a French philosopher of the 17th century, was the author of the concept of dualism, which described a human being as being composed of two separate and distinct entities: the mind and the physical body. The body is a part of the material world and is responsible for our physical reactions, and the mind is a seat of consciousness that holds our feelings, desires, understanding of the world, and, generally, our identity (Chaffee, 2015). Descartes’ philosophical principle was, “I think, therefore I am,” which implies that he perceives the ability to think as crucial to the concept of ‘self.’ The English philosopher John Locke continued to develop Descartes’s themes providing an alternative approach to the concept. For Descartes, the origin of all knowledge was reasoning abilities, whereas Locke claimed that all knowledge originates in sensory experience (Hamou, 2018). The difference between these two approaches lies in the difference between rationalism and empiricism, with Descartes being a rationalist, and Locke being an advocate of the empiricist approach. I think that these theories complement each other, as human consciousness is a combination of both rational and empiric experience, and people’s knowledge and understanding of the world are formed equally by both of them.
The Buddhist Simile of the Chariot and Plato’s Chariot Analogy
In his analogy, Plato compared the soul to a chariot driven by a pair of winged horses and ruled by a charioteer. One horse represents Passion, the other Appetite, and the charioteer who tries to control them is Reason. The Buddhist Simile of the Chariot is the representation of the concept of ‘no-self.’ According to Buddhism, the self is composed of five elements: physical form, sensation, conceptualization, consciousness, and dispositions to act. They are engaged in constant interplay with one another, but there is no identity beyond their interaction. For Buddhists, life is impermanent, and all elements of the universe are in the constant process of transition and transformation. The Buddhists’ and Plato’s concepts are similar in their representation of the ‘self’ as being composed of several elements. However, Plato’s approach is more rational and pragmatic, with the soul being divided into rational (Reason) and irrational (Passion and Appetite) parts, with the rational part trying to take control over primitive desires. The Buddhist concept is more philosophical, describing the processes that happen in the soul as an interplay between different elements.
References
- Chaffee, John. 2015. The Philosopher’s Way. Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas. Pearson.
- Graham, Gordon. 2004. Eight Theories of Ethics. Psychology Press.
- Fischer, John Martin. 2005. Free Will: Libertarianism, Alternative Possibilities, and Moral Responsibility. Taylor & Francis.
- Hamou, Philippe. 2018. Locke and Cartesian Philosophy. Oxford University Press.