3 of 27

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 4

and Benedictus de Spinoza).

Thomas Hobbes was a classical compatibilist. Like Hobbes, some compatibilists would argue that one can act freely "only" when he/she willed the act and could have done otherwise, if and only if he/she had chosen to. In other words, if one does not decide to truly "will" his/her act, then there is no way for that act to take place, because his/her life has already been fixed.

David Hume, also a compatibilist, believed strongly that human freedom equally correlates with the principle of determinism, because of the individual's character. He believed that one can have "hypothetical" free will and liberty as long as his/her will is not constrained, unlike those who are imprisoned, held hostage, or any form of constraint. Moreover, he argues that free acts are self-caused by one's choices as determined by his beliefs, needs, and by his character. Yes, a decision-making method exists in Hume's (including other compatibilists) deterministic philosophy, but the process is driven by a causal chain of events.

For example, a person might want to buy a book to support the author, for such decision is precipitated by a condition(s) that existed prior that allows him/her to render a decision, such as a good book review, word of mouth, fame, etc. Even though Hobbes and Hume are compatibilists, they represent a deterministic viewpoint; thus, they are determinists.

Unlike Hobbes and Hume, Benedictus de Spinoza was a hard determinist, believing that no free will exist at all. All in all, Spinoza argued that every action happens through necessity and human behavior is fully determined by some previous event. Therefore, the freedom to will an action is nonexistent.

The philosophy of determinism is strange and questionable - and problematic as a whole. This theory which claims that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally influenced by an uninterrupted chain of prior occurrences is impossible to grasp, for it is false. If such theory is true, then it excludes all human action (meaning we are equivalent to robots); particularly, it excludes any sense of morality.

How can there be no morality in a world that is filled with crimes? How can there be no right and wrong, or no good and evil? Who is to blame when one commits a crime? For a determinist to argue that a person who commits a crime is guiltless, because his actions were inevitable due to some event that happened before his birth is outrageous, for we all

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Free will vs. determinism?
We want to hear your view. Write now!