Free Will And Determinism Essay

The concept of free will plays an important part in our apportioning blame or praise, and our holding persons morally responsible for their behavior and actions. In the philosophical work devoted to free will there is no strict definition of this concept but it is widely believed to be a condition necessary for moral responsibility. Proponents of determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism explain the importance of free will in their theories each in their particular way (Compatibilism; Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinism). Silenus Silenus, the central hero of Stephen Robinett’s â€Å"The Satyr† story, can be regarded as a staunch proponent of philosophical hard determinism. Like a true determinist, Silenus, a satyr, does not believe he is responsible for his actions and behavior because he is the creation of another person, namely Hench. He explains his enormous interest in ladies as well as his promiscuous behavior by the fact that Hench gave him the extra Y-chromosome which became a major determinant of his behavior (Robinett). According to the satyr, only human beings can be held responsible for what they do. As Silenus does not consider himself a human being on the one hand, and as he was created by Hench on the other hand, it is the latter that Silenus believes is responsible for him and for anything he does. Silenus maintains that he does not know exactly why he does things and that it is Hench who made him like this, and thus it is Hench who should be held accountable for the way Silenus is and behaves (Robinett). However, nowhere in the story does Silenus give any clear explanation why he believes this. All in all, it is obvious that he does not care about responsibility at all, but considers it a useful, although peculiar, notion, which he often uses to appeal to Hench’s sense of responsibility in order to influence his decisions in his favor. Silenus’ desires and inclinations are caused by factors and circumstances which are outside his control and for which, therefore, he should not be held responsible. All he seems to be interested in is having sex with ladies and taking a drop every now and then. As we know it from the story, his love for ladies is caused by the extra Y-chromosome that Hench gave him. We can also assume that his disposition to alcohol has something to do with the â€Å"material† he was synthesized from, too. From Silenus’ deterministic perspective, it follows that he is not accountable for his decisions and actions as they are not free but are the result of his desires over which he has no control and which he is not able to resist. Libertarians would suggest that Silenus’ actions are actually free, depend on his reason and volition, and are not predetermined by any factors such as the extra Y-chromosome. From the compatibilistic perspective, Silenus’ desires are caused by the above mentioned factors but as he is still free to choose in many situations then he should be held responsible for his actions. There is plenty of evidence in the story that Silenus is able to control his behavior. For example, at Merton’s offices Silenus became interested in the receptionist, â€Å"a bird-legged girl†, who made him sexually excited. When she left him after several awkward attempts to have sex with her, Silenus at first intended to chase her but then decided to let her go (Robinett). Given the influence of the extra Y-chromosome, the receptionist’s body must have clouded Silenus’ mind. However, he was able to control his strong sexual desires at that moment because Hench could hear her screams and come to punish him. Another good example of Silenus’ ability to control his behavior can be seen during the meeting with Merton. Silenus was constantly interrupting Hench while the latter was talking to Merton. When Hench got angry, he told Silenus to be silent or he would punish him later by not feeding him properly. Although Silenus was eager to appear as a disobedient and unreliable creature, he stopped immediately misbehaving himself and annoying Hench because he did want to eat that night. One more example is a clash between Hench and Silenus which broke out when they came home after the appointment with Merton. When Hench slapped Silenus, the satyr felt like grabbing and throwing his creator across the room. But Silenus managed to control his anger because he realized that if he hit Hench he would never convince him not to sell him into slavery (Robinett). All these examples show that Silenus can, if he wishes to, control his behavior. The above mentioned examples of Silenus’ abilities to control his especially violent or unacceptable behavior also show that Silenus is able to draw causal inferences in this story. In these situations he demonstrates his awareness of the possible consequences of his actions (which could be disastrous for him) and decides to avoid them. It follows that in most cases Silenus behaves well or does not do unacceptable actions not out of a sense of deep understanding of the consequences of such behavior and, what is particularly important, responsibility for his actions, but only because he tries to escape punishment. In many other cases (for example, when he forced Audrey to have sex with him), his unacceptable behavior can be explained by the fact that Silenus, as a rational being (and he proves several times in the story that he is indeed a rational being) must realize his moral responsibility for his actions, but also understands that he is likely to escape punishment for them. As a rational being, Silenus is fully capable of drawing causal inferences of his behavior, but his acceptable or unacceptable behavior depends on whether he is likely to be punished for it or experience certain inconveniences because of it and not on his sense of moral responsibility for his actions. In every situation Silenus has the choice whether to follow his inclinations and behave in an unacceptable way or whether to postpone the satisfaction of his desires to a later time. As we can see, in some cases Silenus postpones his intentions to do certain things, but in other situations he prefers to misbehave himself rather than control himself. So in most cases it would be incorrect to conclude that Silenus could not do otherwise than he did. Silenus is in fact a drunk who avoids responsibility for his drinking habits. But the question of Silenus being a drunk should not be restricted only to this vice. He is also fond of having sex and likes being fed well. It would be fairer to describe Silenus as a person who has some bad habits and preferences (like most humans have) and tends to satisfy some of his vicious needs and inclinations but who does not want to be held responsible for his actions. For Silenus, it seems easier to enjoy life and satisfy his desires than to control them and be responsible for his actions. Silenus holds clear deterministic views on the extent of his moral responsibility for his actions. Determinists believe that human behavior, decisions, and actions are determined and caused by prior occurrences (Determinism). If all human actions are predetermined then there is no free will and humans are not morally responsible for what they do. Contemporary determinists also believe that human behavior is determined by some external causes which are beyond man’s control, particularly genetic and environmental factors (Geisler). We do not know exactly whether Robinett’s Silenus has ever heard of determinism and free will, but he successfully applies deterministic views to explain his behavior. He believes his behavior is determined and caused by his genetic constitution that was given to him by Hench and that his inclinations that are caused by this constitution can’t be controlled. Silenus maintains that if he is not responsible for what he is made from, then he can’t be responsible for what he does. Although Silenus’ position about behavior and responsibility corresponds to the views of proponents of determinism, it is obvious that Silenus’ arguments do not at all reflect his philosophical deterministic position in life, but rather are a convenient excuse for shifting moral responsibility for his actions to others. Silenus versus Hench Silenus’ â€Å"I am not responsible for what I am† and Hench’s â€Å"You are responsible for what you do† are in fact compatible. Hench created Silenus with certain predispositions which make him likely to behave and act in a particular way in certain situations. Hench is the author of Silenus’ predispositions and the one who shaped Silenus’ character. Silenus has nothing to do with the â€Å"material† he was made from and he is right when he says that he is not responsible for what he is. But Silenus is also a rational being and in several cases he demonstrates that his decisions are based on reasoning. He is also able to control and guide his behavior. It follows that it is Silenus, not Hench, who can be held responsible for what he does. So both Silenus’ and Hench’s positions are correct and compatible. In this story, the problem is that Silenus is not responsible for what he is and extends this irresponsibility to what he does. In the beginning of the story, Hench agrees with Silenus’ view of the extent of his moral responsibility. In his discussion with Audrey, Hench maintains that as Silenus’ creator he is fully responsible for him. Hench does not consider Silenus a human being and maintains that he is not able to take care of himself and assume responsibility for what he does. Hench even goes so far as to state that he is responsible for everything Silenus is or does because Silenus is exactly what he, Hench, made him (Robinett). However, we can also see Hench criticize Silenus for his unacceptable behavior, because he does not control his desires, and also suggest that Silenus should be responsible for his actions (Robinett). It seems there is a certain contradiction in Hench’s belief of responsibility for Silenus. On the one hand, he feels responsible for Silenus’ actions because he is his creator. On the other hand, although in Hench’s view Silenus is not a human being, he is at least a rational being as he often demonstrates his ability to express thoughts and explain things that are based on reasoning. Hench believes that Silenus should at least try to be responsible for his actions and control them (Robinett). We may assume from what we read in the story that there is some struggle in Hench’s mind as to whether only he should be held responsible for Silenus’ actions or whether this responsibility should be shared between both him and Silenus. As we read on, at the end of the story Hench comes to the conclusion that Silenus should be held accountable for his behavior, too. Although this conclusion is reached on the basis of his personal grievance against Silenus (because Silenus had sex with Audrey), it is clear that now Hench is firm in his opinion that he is responsible for what Silenus is, but not for what Silenus does. Gorr Michael Gorr is a proponent of the compatibilistic theory. Unlike libertarians, who maintain that humans have free will which is incompatible with determinism, compatibilists believe that determinism and free will exist and are in fact compatible ideas. According to this belief, free will is not a person’s ability to make a certain choice independently of prior causes and events, but a person’s ability to choose when he or she is not forced to do it. Compatibilists do not deny that our choices are predetermined, but they emphasize that the choices we make are examples of free will if we are not forced to make them. But if we are forced to make whatever choices we make, then this is an example of a lack of free will (Compatibilism and Incompatibilism). If a person’s action is coerced, then this person is not responsible for it. But if a person’s action is not coerced, that is, under certain circumstances the person can do otherwise, then this person is accountable for the action. Gorr’s compatibilistic position is seen in his example of â€Å"knocking down Jones†. Gorr maintains that in the case where another person pushes him and makes him bump into Jones, he should not be held responsible for his action as its consequence is not a result of his intention or choice. In the case where he deliberately bumps into Jones and injures him, he is accountable for his behavior because he could do otherwise. Gorr states that we are responsible for our actions only when we desire for these actions to occur (Gorr). Gorr accepts, unlike libertarians, the deterministic universal causation, but he rejects the deterministic belief that humans are not to be held responsible for their actions because their actions are determined and caused by factors which are beyond their control. He agrees with Hench who states at the end of the story that Silenus is responsible for his behavior which is the result of his desires even though he is not responsible for his genetic constitution that determines and causes his desires. Gorr maintains that it is not necessary to be responsible for one’s desires in order to be responsible for one’s behavior. For Gorr, it is more important to have control over one’s actions and   not to have control over the causes of these actions. So long as we have control over our actions and it depends on our choice whether these actions will occur or not, Gorr concludes, we are responsible for these actions. And Silenus, regardless of his genetic constitution and environment, should be held responsible for his actions (Gorr). Conclusion We can partly reject determinism as philosophical proposition and do not agree with the belief that whatever we do is predetermined and we can’t control it or do otherwise and are,   therefore, not to be held responsible for what we do. But it seems wrong to reject or neglect the notion of universal causation which determinists believe is integral to their theory. It would be wrong to deny that some events are caused by other preceding events, and the latter were caused by earlier events, and so on. It seems there exists an unbroken causal chain of which humans are part. Similarly, it would be wrong to deny the importance and influence of factors such as heredity or upbringing on how we make our decisions or choose to behave in a particular situation. So every event has its cause and every human action is also caused by certain factors. What does seem important in this case is, as Gorr points out, the difference in the kind of causation (Gorr). Our genetic make-up and the environment are important, but not the only, factors which predetermine or guide our behavior as we can often control them and choose to do otherwise than these factors predispose us to do. Personally, I can’t accept the deterministic position that everything that exists or occurs has a sufficient reason for existing or occurring as it exists or occurs, and not otherwise (Causal Determinism). It is hard to believe that human actions are predetermined, are not free, and can’t be changed (hard determinism), or that there is chance they could be changed (soft determinism). I do not particularly like the idea that since human actions are not free humans are not to be held morally responsible for them because in my view this promotes certain moral chaos. I am not convinced by the indeterministic position that all human acts are uncaused. I share the libertarian belief that humans actually do have free will, but like Gorr, I do not believe it is incompatible with deterministic causation. That is why I am most inclined to accept compatibilism which is something in the middle between determinism and libertarianism and does not disparage deterministic causation and accepts free will, and therefore, moral responsibility. I believe that my actions can be in fact predetermined by several factors, but in many cases I still have the possibility to choose between two and more options, and that I should be held responsible for whatever the consequences of my choice are. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Causal Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ 2. Compatibilism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ 3. Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism 4. Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism 5. Geisler, N. Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm 6. Gorr, M. Being and Doing: Some Thoughts about Responsibility. Though Probes. 7. Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm 8. Robinett, S. The Satyr. Thought Probes.