Essay Sample on Determinism

Consider this scenario: You stole chocolate. Should you be held morally responsible for your actions? Intuitively we think yes, however, delving deeper we realize the answer lies within the answer to whether your choice to steal was free. 

Answering this is complicated, the theory of determinism rejects free will. Determinists approach this scenario with a scientific perspective believing that all actions are caused by preexisting events (Sider 113). Due to this, a determinist would not hold you morally responsible for your theft. This seems quite implausible, on a larger scale because this would mean we could never hold anyone morally responsible for their actions.  

Rejecting determinism does not entail accepting the direct opposite however, Libertarians reject science completely and believe that actions are caused wholly by a person. They determine your decision to steal was not caused by any other factors, including your beliefs and desires. This is an implausible approach not only because of the quick dismissal of physics and psychology but also, as Sider highlights: if our actions are not caused by beliefs and desires and are completely random, they cannot be truly free. (121) 

The contradictory nature of these theories resulted in a reluctance of people to accept one to avoid renouncing the other. The third approach to this scenario is the happy medium between the first two, compatibilism. Compatibilists agree that rejecting one of our options is highly implausible, as we cannot reject one of our, as Sider says, two most important beliefs: science and freedom (117). Rather the solution to this contradiction is redefining what a “free action” is (125). This idea seems intuitively possible, yet it does not seem feasible to define free action without opposition. This is the main objection to compatibilism and whether it should be accepted. 

The original definition required a free action to be done in the ‘right way’ (127). Applying this to the example: Your decision to steal chocolate was done in the ‘right way’ so you can be held morally responsible. However, this was too vague, what determines whether an action is done in the right way?  

A modified definition was created to answer this: a free action to stem from one’s beliefs and desires (128). Using this, my decision to steal chocolate stemmed from my desire to eat, and my belief that stealing was how I can achieve this desire. However, while this may work for most cases, this definition does not consider a possible situation where I could have been hypnotized into having these beliefs and desires, at which point my action could not be considered truly ‘free’.  

Once again, this causes us to amend our definition to determine a free action is caused by a person’s beliefs and desires, only if it stems from ‘who the person is’ (130). This definition seems to acknowledge any potential hypnosis about beliefs and desires, yet still is not foolproof. If I had never stolen before, my action of stealing chocolate would not stem from who I am, and this definition would not hold me morally responsible. Basing intent on 'who a person is' is unreliable, even if I had not previously stolen anything, my actions were still my own, and therefore a free action.  

So how are we to believe in compatibilism if there is no definition that can fully support it? This question is what compels most to reject this approach. While the definitions that were given to us are not without exceptions, we can continue to modify and create new ones. It is more plausible than determinism and libertarianism because it allows us to believe in science and moral responsibility.