Free Will Versus Determinism – The Ongoing Debate

Determinism

External Determinism

External determinism suggests that factors outside of an individual, such as parenting, media, and school, influence behavior. Behaviorism and social learning theory adopt this approach.

Bandura’s research in 1961 showed that children learn aggression through observing and imitating their violent parents.

Internal Determinism

Those who hold a biological perspective are also proponents of determinism. However, they believe that the determining factor is internal rather than external.

Sociobiology suggests that a species’ behavior is governed by evolution, while an individual’s behavior is dictated by genetic inheritance.

Bowlby (1969) claims that children have an inherent need to attach to one primary figure.

Neurological and hormonal processes trigger personality traits like extraversion or neuroticism and their associated behavior. As such, the concept of an autonomous human being is unnecessary.

This view regards humans as mere biological machines, and even consciousness is regarded as a level of nervous system arousal.

Freud also believes that behavior is controlled by internal factors like unconscious motivation or childhood events, known as psychic determinism.

Different Levels Of Determinism

Hard Determinism

Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.

According to Skinner, free will is an illusion, and human behavior is solely determined by environmental circumstances and personal history. Criminal behavior, in this view, is seen as natural and inevitable, while law-abiding behavior is a result of previous reinforcement. All behavior is ultimately controlled by stimuli, and there is no room for moral evaluation or conscious decision-making.

Soft Determinism

Soft determinism proposes that individuals have some degree of choice, but this choice is limited by internal or external factors. For instance, poverty may not force a person to commit theft, but it can increase the likelihood of such actions due to desperation.

Determinism clashes with the societal values of accountability and self-governance that underpin moral and legal responsibilities. Moreover, psychologists cannot accurately forecast behavior with certainty due to the intricate interplay of factors that shape behavior.

Freewill

Freewill refers to the ability to make choices and take actions that are not predetermined by external or internal factors. It assumes that individuals have control over their behavior and can make decisions based on personal agency.

For instance, an adult without mental illness or coercion can choose to break or follow the law.

The humanistic approach assumes that humans have free will and personal agency, the ability to make choices and determine their life paths. For humanistic psychologists like Maslow and Rogers, freedom is essential for personal growth and self-actualization.

Unlike chemical reactions, human behavior is complex and can lead to a variety of outcomes based on individual choices. While some believe that human behavior is determined by external or internal factors, others, like Freud, believe in the ability to overcome these forces through therapy and personal growth.

Erich Fromm takes this further, arguing that fear often prevents people from exercising their freedom and choosing their own paths. However, the power to choose between good and evil represents the core of human freedom.

Critical Evaluation

Psychologists who endorse the free will perspective argue that determinism undermines the worth of human behavior, as it eliminates freedom and dignity.

Taking a stance in the free will versus determinism debate has significant consequences. Deterministic explanations diminish personal accountability. For example, a person charged with a violent crime might claim that their actions were predetermined by factors such as upbringing, past injuries, relationship issues, or mental illness.

Determinism also has notable implications for psychology as a scientific discipline. Scientists aim to establish laws that can predict outcomes, as is evident in physics, chemistry, and biology. Psychology strives to do the same by developing laws that forecast behavior. Rejecting determinism would essentially mean rejecting the scientific method of explaining behavior.

It is evident that a rigid deterministic or free will approach is not suitable for the study of human behavior. Instead, most psychologists embrace the concept of free will to indicate that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces but rather an active response to internal and external factors.

To describe this position, the term “soft determinism” is frequently used, which suggests that people do have a choice, but their behavior is always influenced by some form of biological or environmental pressure.

The Implications of Free Will vs. Determinism on Morality and Responsibility:

The debate over free will versus determinism has significant implications for issues of morality and responsibility. If determinism is true, then it suggests that individuals are not fully responsible for their actions, as their behavior is predetermined by internal or external factors. This raises important questions about the justice system and how we assign blame for criminal behavior.

On the other hand, if free will is seen as the dominant factor in human behavior, then individuals can be held fully responsible for their actions. However, this also raises questions about how we determine whether an individual truly had the freedom to make a particular choice. Are individuals truly free to make choices, or are their decisions influenced by unconscious factors or social conditioning?

The question of morality is also affected by the free will vs. determinism debate. If our actions are predetermined by external or internal factors, then the idea of moral responsibility becomes more complicated. Is it fair to judge someone for their behavior if they had no control over it?

Whatever your stance may be, one thing is certain: changing your mindset and attitude can have a profound impact on your life.

The Scientific Perspective:

The scientific perspective on the free will vs. determinism debate is a topic that has been explored extensively by psychologists and other scientists. It has important implications for how we understand human behavior and how we approach scientific inquiry.

Many scientists argue that determinism is a necessary assumption for scientific investigation. They believe that everything that happens in the natural world is caused by other events that precede it. Therefore, if we can understand the causes of a particular behavior, we can predict and control it.

This view has been particularly influential in the natural sciences, such as physics and chemistry, where it has led to many important discoveries and technological advancements. However, it is also applied in psychology, where researchers seek to identify causal relationships between different factors and behavior.

On the other hand, some psychologists argue that the deterministic approach is not appropriate for understanding human behavior. They suggest that human behavior is too complex to be reduced to a set of deterministic laws, and that people have the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes.

Furthermore, they argue that a deterministic view of human behavior has negative implications for moral responsibility. If all behavior is determined by prior causes, it is difficult to hold individuals accountable for their actions. This view suggests that individuals are not responsible for their behavior and that it is unfair to punish them for something that they could not control.

The ongoing debate and potential solutions:

The debate between free will and determinism is ongoing, with no clear resolution in sight. Some philosophers argue that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive and that both can coexist. This approach is known as compatibilism, which suggests that humans have free will within the constraints of determinism. Others argue that the debate is fundamentally flawed, and the very question is misguided.

One potential solution to the debate is to shift the focus away from the philosophical question of whether we have free will and instead focus on the practical implications of our actions. Regardless of whether our behavior is predetermined or not, we still need to take responsibility for our actions and be held accountable for them.

FAQ

Q: Is the free will vs. determinism debate just a philosophical discussion or does it have real-world implications?

A: The debate has significant real-world implications, particularly in areas such as criminal justice and moral responsibility. If we believe that all behavior is predetermined, it becomes challenging to hold individuals fully responsible for their actions. However, if we believe that humans have free will, we can more easily assign responsibility for actions, whether they are positive or negative.

Q: Can free will and determinism coexist?

A: Yes, some philosophers and scientists believe that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. The concept of compatibilism suggests that free will and determinism can coexist if we understand that our choices are influenced by a combination of internal and external factors.

Q: How do cultural and social factors impact the free will vs. determinism debate?

A: Cultural and social factors can impact our beliefs about free will and determinism. For example, some cultures may emphasize individual autonomy and free will, while others may place more importance on collective responsibility and the impact of external factors on behavior. Additionally, social and economic factors can impact our choices and constrain our options, which can influence how much control we feel we have over our lives.

Q: Can science definitively prove whether free will or determinism is true?

A: It is unlikely that science can definitively prove whether free will or determinism is true. Both concepts are difficult to measure objectively, and there is no clear consensus among scientists or philosophers. While some scientists may use deterministic models to predict behavior, others argue that human behavior is too complex to be reduced to simple laws.

Q: Can therapy help individuals overcome deterministic factors that may be impacting their behavior?

A: Yes, therapy can help individuals become more aware of the factors that may be influencing their behavior and give them tools to make different choices. For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy helps individuals recognize and change negative thought patterns that may be contributing to certain behaviors. However, therapy is not a guarantee of change and may not be effective for all individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate between free will and determinism has been a subject of discussion for centuries and has important implications for our understanding of morality, responsibility, and the nature of science. While determinism suggests that behavior is predetermined and can be predicted based on a set of causes, the free will approach proposes that individuals have control over their behavior and can make decisions based on personal agency.

The debate between free will and determinism has significant consequences. Deterministic explanations diminish personal accountability and undermine the worth of human behavior. Rejecting determinism would essentially mean rejecting the scientific method of explaining behavior.

On the other hand, embracing free will raises questions about how we determine whether an individual truly had the freedom to make a particular choice. It also raises important questions about the justice system and how we assign blame for criminal behavior.

Despite the ongoing debate, one potential solution is to shift the focus away from the philosophical question of whether we have free will and instead focus on the practical implications of our actions. Regardless of whether our behavior is predetermined or not, we still need to take responsibility for our actions and be held accountable for them.