Taylor in Freedom and Determinism

Taylor in Freedom and Determinism

Determinism is a philosophical concept which states that all events are determined by prior causes, including human behavior. "Hard determinism" further states that free will does not exist and there is no such thing as moral responsibility. "Soft determinism," however, argues that free will exists and consequently moral responsibility. This paper aims to prove that "soft determinism" is the more plausible theory.

According to Taylor, everything that exists in the universe is governed by the laws of cause and effect. Anything can be explained by an unbroken chain of causes that occurred in the past. Applying this to human behavior, this means that all human actions are governed by the same cause-and-effect and nothing happens by chance. In addition to this, free will is only an illusion that man perceives as real. Anything that man does is ultimately pre-determined and thus he is not morally responsible for his actions. This concept is best illustrated by Laplace's demon: imagine an omniscient entity that knows everything about the past and present, the position of everything in the universe to the tiniest detail, and the knowledge of all physical laws. This being can use the knowledge to determine the future, down to the smallest detail. Since man is composed of matter also bounded by physical laws, he is also subject to such determination.

According to Ayer, determinism and free will are compatible. He begins by stating that determinism and free will are independent concepts. Determinism deals with cause-and-effect, while free will deals with choice. The existence of one doesn't imply or negate the other. For example, it may be possible that man's actions are the inescapable result of a chain of cause-and-effect in his past leading to the present. However, man is capable of deliberately making a "free choice" among possible alternatives of action - and he does. Determinism doesn't imply constraint. A universe whose inevitable future is determined based on its past and present doesn't necessarily presuppose that everything in it doesn't have the capability to choose. In addition to this, Ayer explained that the rule of cause-and-effect are merely human perceptions. Finally, he postulated that "free will" might be a causal factor itself.

This paper argues in favor of Ayer's view regarding soft determinism. Both determinism and soft determinism agree that everything is governed by cause-and-effect and that the future is the result of an unbroken chain of events in the past and present. This concept, however, makes several assumptions: 1) the cause-and-effect is an immutable law; and 2) there is no randomness in the universe. If we assume that 1) and 2) are true, then hard determinism is valid. Free will then is only an illusion that man perceives as a result of the complexity of all interacting cause-and-effects. Although he thinks he has possible courses of action, his final choice has already been the sum result of these interacting variables. However, if either 1) or 2) is false then it breaks down the whole concept of hard determinism.

This paper further argues that 1) and 2) are both false. First, the cause-and-effect concept is only a human phenomenon. What we know as science is only a generalization of seemingly regular and repeatable events. For example, Newton's laws of motion had been considered the only way of explaining the movement of planets, stars, and galaxies. This generalization has been accepted for hundreds of years. However, Einstein's theory of relativity has shown inconsistencies in Newton's explanation (example: gravitational lenses and time dilation). We haven't and might not know every law of nature there is to know. We are also not absolutely certain if some law would be broken or be discovered in the future. The free will might even be considered a "cause" in itself. Thus, the only thing certain with law of cause-and-effect is that it might be only a human perception.