determinism is a theory that claims that all events are influenced by other causes that were previously in existence
From a philosophical point of view, determinism is a theory that claims that all events are influenced by other causes that were previously in existence. Mainly, determinism precludes free will as presented by one of the philosophers known as Holbach. Typically, casual determinism claims that everything is caused by antecedent events that are vested in the laws of nature. Based on the concept of causal determinism, Holbach claims that the types of impulses received by people from the environment or objects surrounding them in society influence their motives (Mickelson, 2019). Nonetheless, the brain acts before the impulses influence our motives by automatically identifying and labeling what to do in line with primal urges. For instance, a person may try as much as possible to avoid things that would cause injury to the body or cause death. The force to avoid things like poison is influenced by the innate urge of a person to embrace safety measures. Besides, Holbach argues that a person continues to reside in a given environment. In that regard, the environment starts shaping his thinking, thereby influencing other things in becoming desirable while others become repulsive. For instance, the government can partner with society to shape the citizens by minimizing criminal activities in the environment.
Moreover, Holbach claims that the environment can shape our physical organs, just like the set of dominoes. The shaping of our physical organs can affect our brain and mind, thereby shaping our desires and different beliefs. The shaping of physical organs by the environment also influences our strongest desire that makes people act differently. Therefore, the belief that everything is caused by other underlying things that caused it is what Holback refers to as casual determinism (Mickelson, 2019). According to Holbach, causal determinism is can be used to explain how a person does not have free will. For example, if a person would work backward and determine the cause of what influences everything, then a person would finally realize that he lacks free will. The challenge in this revelation is the complexity of the environment and everything that affect us. Mainly, people experience many new things in their environment that limit them to identifying what made them who they are. Besides, it is difficult for a man to identify what affects them, thereby influencing people to believe that there is no cause to the actions and make them believe in their free will.
Moreover, several philosophers presented their claims about free will but Holbach contradicted their definitions. The first philosopher argued that free will influenced people to choose but Holbach dismissed this definition by arguing that innate impulse is the main reason why people select what they want and cannot be controlled. The second philosopher claimed that free will was the absence of obstacles (Mickelson, 2019). Holbach dismissed this definition by claiming that physical and mental constraints cannot affect free will. Overall, free will would be defined as the absence of necessity and Holback claims that lack of necessity would be a paradox. Thus, the free will should be based on the laws of nature where the absence of possibility is possible.
Question 2
The Dilemma of Determinism claims that the causes of action will occur at random of the action is not the end of a chain. Also, the action will end if no antecedent events that cause it. In that regard, the responsibility of the event to occur cannot be attached to anyone. Mainly, the Dilemma of Determinism has been debate by many philosophers who have tried to provide different explanations and definitions. Primarily, the Dilemma of Determinism has confused many philosophers who have tried to figure out the role of moral responsibility of determinism. There are several assumptions connected to the Dilemma of Determinism. It assumes that people have no moral responsibility if determinism exists. In other words, people cannot themselves when something occurs if their actions are caused and influenced by something other than themselves because they cannot control something beyond their reach (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Besides, it is essential to understand how moral responsibility and causal chain correlates. For instance, if a person pushes another person into a vase and it gets damaged, then the fault would be transferred to the person who pushed the other.
Another assumption of the Dilemma of Determinism is that people cannot take moral responsibility if indeterminism is true. This implies that people cannot be blamed for their actions if everything that takes place is traced to be a random occurrence. One of the examples that demonstrate this assumption is an action that results in either injury or death. For instance, if a group of people decides to hike in the forest and a branch of a tree fell and kill one person, then no one would classify that as murder (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Based on the Dilemma of Determinism, that would be said to be an accident. There is no moral responsibility in this even because the tree has no life and the fault of the death cannot be connected to anyone.
Nonetheless, since one of the assumptions must be true, and both premises present the same inference, then one can claim that either way there is no moral responsibility. In that regard, people have much to lose if none of the two premises appear to dominate the concept of determinism. In a society, the dilemma can affect the justice system by affecting its purpose and meaning because the system is established to determine who has moral responsibility for everything that occurs (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Therefore, the absence of moral responsibility in society limits everything because there is nothing to determine. Moreover, the absence of moral responsibility would also crumble out ethics systems. The central purpose of moral responsibility is determining what people ought to do. Therefore, when people have no control over their actions, then moral responsibility becomes meaningless and has no purpose in controlling people. More importantly, the absence of moral responsibility destroys feelings of dignity, pride, and guilt, thereby making people do actions that are not guided by moral values since there are not benefits of acting and being morally responsible. Ayer responded to the Dilemma of Determinism by putting forth the theory of compatibilism (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Ayer claims that free will and determinism can coincide through the extension of moral responsibility. Therefore, Ayer claims that determinism can be postulated by explaining the causal chain that leads to our actions. Moreover, Ayer uses the theory of compatibilism to argue that people can act freely if they are not influenced by obstacles. Overall, Ayer claims that people can retain their sense of moral responsibility because both premises are mutually exclusive.
Question 3
From a philosophical point of view, a hard determinist is a person to believe that external factors cause and determine all the events that take place in society. Mainly, Ayer argues that theorists make three types of errors when defining causal laws. These errors include; the contradiction of Christian faith and belief that people are free to determine to do good or bad, the argument of blaming people for their actions and ignoring morality on actions that people do. Based on the three errors, Ayer believes that the best definition of a hard determinist is that previous events and causal laws determine events (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Ayer holds his definition because he thinks it acknowledges other factors that influence and causes events that the impact of natural laws. The best explanation in the difference between the two definitions is that Ayer defines a hard determinist from a general perspective while the other definition is made from a rigid perspective.
Mainly, hard determinism is used as a philosophical theory that claims that human actions and behaviors are entirely influenced by external factors. Therefore, the theory of hard determinism states that people have no genuine free will and ethical accountability to justify their actions. Ayer presents three errors in the theory of determinism (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). In that regard, people make choices that are either accidentally or causally determined, there is a lack of casual law, and that people are subject to the causal laws implemented to animate and inanimates things because determinism and free will are based on illusions.
The first error of determinism is the lack of causal laws. This error demonstrates the matter of basic chances that people in a similar manner. Therefore, the errors show that people may be free but they fail to adhere to moral responsibility. In that regard, it is essential to demonstrate that human beings can be held responsible only if they never acted out of their free will (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). In the second error, the choices made by human beings are either made accidentally and causally. In that regard, Ayer claimed that either is an accident that a person decides to act as he or she does. Otherwise, it would be considered an accident because it will be a matter of chance that people do not decide to act in that manner. Moreover, it would be irrational to attach moral responsibility to a person who decides to act as he or she does because it will result in determinism if it is a matter of chance that people do not choose on their actions.
In the third error, determinism and free will are illusory. Therefore, people are subject to the laws of nature that are feasible and applicable in animate and inanimate things. Therefore, this error categorically indicates that people can behave freely when they decide and as they choose. Besides, people can revert generalizations made about their actions and conducts that they are allegedly subjected to those who wish to set limits on them (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Overall, this error also considers the extent to which people act based on legal aspects that govern them and indicates that their actions are strange. However, people governed by the laws of nature justify but it does not conform to the scientific model of the causal laws of nature.
Question 4
Based on the argument presented by Chisholm, there are two types of causation, namely, transeunt causation and immanent causation. Mainly, transeunt causation is an event that causes another event. On the other hand, immanent causation is an agent that causes an event. From a determinism point of view, the most applicable cause is transeunt (Williams, 2010). In that regard, determinism will be false if a person has moral responsibility for his or her actions, which implies that some events can occur as a result of immanent causation. In the argument made by Chisholm, the distinction between the two types can be considered in several approaches.
First, immanent are naturally inborn and depicts the ability where a person tends to portray these feature at all times. On the other hand, transient depicts the abilities when individuals only exist for a short time before they completely vanish. In that regard, it possible to direct moral responsibilities to different people based on the concept of nomological determinism. The concept is applicable in immanent causation because it indicates that the past and the present determine the future (Williams, 2010). Therefore, human beings should be in a position to determine the result of their actions that are caused by the rigid causal laws of nature that claim that everything that happens will bring inevitable results that are different from what happened in previous events. Immanent causation is therefore used to create an opportunity for people to revert cause and effects through responsibilities created, thereby making Chisholm void the dilemma.
Moreover, immanent causation creates more moral responsibility based on the fact that human beings have naturally inborn characteristics. It ensures that the characters will appear in eventualities that are common but do not surpass human control. Overall, all the characters are likely to provide predicaments of the possible result of their actions whenever they are engaged, thereby increasing their moral responsibilities on their actions.
Consequently, it is essential to consider the position of Holbach on the term immanent causation. In that regard, Holbach is right in his description of the event of the immanent if we consider several aspects of his argument (Williams, 2010). According to
Holbach, it is not wrong to use immanent causation because it entirely inherent and also comprise of naturally inborn abilities. In that regard, Holbach claims that the immanent causation will always prevail at all times, especially at the primary of any eventuality.
To sum up, in case any causal laws of nature can be used to make predictions on the actions of a human being before these actions take place, then it implies that there is no actual free will. In that regard, the central argument put across by Holbach is that the causal laws of nature are inevitable and unbreakable. Therefore, free will does not amount to making viable choices and does not result in the absence of restraint.
Question 5
From a philosophical point of view, theological determinism refers to a category of predeterminism that claims that all events that take place are predestined and pre-ordained to take place by one and more divine beings. It also states the events that are pre-ordained to happen are provided the divine beings’ omniscience. In simple terms, theological determinism presents the argument that every event that takes place in the world is determined by God (Vicens, 2016). More significantly, theological determinism claims that events are fated to occur in line with the omniscience of a deity. It is also essential to note that theological determinism is vested in three main assumptions. The first assumption of theological determinism states that a particular type of God exists and is characterized through omniscient nature. In the second assumption, theological determinism states that God is eternal and everlasting. Lastly, the foreknowledge assumption is connected to theological determinism.
From a philosophical point of view, Yahweh is the name that has been provided to describe God in theological determinism. If we consider that assumption, then it positive to say that Yahweh is essentially omniscient, which implies that once Yahweh is proven not to be omniscient, then his existence would be meaningless and would cease. Nonetheless, theological determinism claims that Yahweh is eternal and everlasting, which therefore provide proof that Yahweh must exist. Based on the assumption that Yahweh is everlasting, then it is positive to conclude that he has existed for all time, which implies that Yahweh is timeless (Vicens, 2016). In other words, the existence of Yahweh is not limited to time. More importantly, theological determinism claims that Yahweh is also the God who created space. This implies that Yahweh existed even before the space was created. Thus, Yahweh cannot occupy the space that he created after many years of his existence.
In the last assumption, Yahweh has exhaustive foreknowledge, which provides him with the power and the ability to create justified beliefs that determine the events that are likely to take place. However, the assumption states that some events are not determined by God because human beings are culpable for what they do either good or bad (Vicens, 2016). In other words, the systematic metaphysics that God determine every event that occurs but human being are culpable of their sins indicates that the events are jointly consistent with the assumption that Yahweh is eternal and everlasting.
Overall, Smith appears to have a different view of what has been presented by theological determinism. Mainly, Smith’s belief is different from Yahweh’s belief. Primarily, the difference between what Yahweh and Smith believe is that whatever Smith believes does not attach moral responsibility or determine what his neighbor, Jone, would do. In contrast, whatever Yahweh believes has always remained the truth (Vicens, 2016). The central argument behind this comparison is that Yahweh would cease to exist if what believes does not become true or turn out to be a false belief. If that happens, then the assumption of theological determinism that God is omniscient would be contradicted.
Question 6
Typically, the mind or body problem presented by Descartes demonstrates the confusion on the interaction between the body and the mind. In the first aspect of this problem, the mind is considered to be a non-extended and thinking thing. Therefore, the mind does not occupy any space whatsoever. In the second premise of this problem, the body is considered as an extended thing (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). In the third premise of the problem, the extended and non-extended things are limited to interact, which implies that the body and the mind cannot interact.
Consequently, the issue has been addressed through different responses where three groups have presented their different stances. These groups are the materialists, the idealists, and the dualists. First, the materialists claim that there is one physical substance that exists. Therefore, if we proceed with Descartes’s approach to substance, the central argument is that substance depends on itself for it to exist. In that regard, one can conclude that materialists attack the first premise of the problem. Materialists claim that the mind only exists due to the complexity of the physical brain.
Moreover, it is essential to pinpoint the view of idealism. The second group comprises of the idealists. through their name, idealists stem from that view that they claim there is no existence of a physical substance in the world. Idealists claim that all the physical items represent the collection of mere ideologies (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Besides, idealists claim there mind thinking of all things must exist because ideas cannot exist independently. Idealists connect the mind thinking to God who ensures all things exist. In that regard, the stance of idealists does not correlate with the stance of materialists who claim that is only one mental substance in existence. The idealists oppose materialists who believe that a mind leads to the existence of the body.
Finally, it is essential to consider the approach used by dualists. Mainly, dualists do not attack any premise but they choose to uphold both premises. First, dualists claim that two substances do exist in this world in both mental and physical dimensions, but they also create issues for these substances. The proof provided suggests the opposite as demonstrated in the correlation table. The evidence demonstrates how neurological complexity is compared with the behavioral complexity of animals. The neurological complexity is lower than the behavioral complexity when the comparison is made using a worm. On the same table, the brains of dogs are more complex and also their behavior (Feinberg & Shafer-Landau, 2013). Mainly, these animals care for their young ones, pursue pleasure, and express a sense of self. Human beings are located at the bottom of the table. Dualists claim that the behavioral and neurological complexity of human beings is far much higher than that of any animal. The evidence has a positive correlation that indicates that physical neurology of human being has great impacts on mental behavioral capacity. Overall, one can conclude that the evidence points toward materialism but dualists do not support it. Dualists claim that two substances exist independently such that the mind does not need the brain to exist. The evidence contradicts dualists because it indicates that mental capacity depends on the brain.