Determinism is the philosophical concept that all past, present, and future events are fixed. According to Meghan Griffith, there are several varieties of determinism (17). In this essay, I will be concerned with causal determinism, which, according to Griffith, is the belief that “if there are deterministic laws of nature, then given circumstances, certain kinds of events will always follow certain other kinds of events” (18). In other words, causal determinism focuses on the relationship between cause and effect and determinism, as proponents of the idea assert that all occurrences are induced by previous events and conditions in accordance with the laws of nature. It has been argued by many that the essence of causal determinism threatens
…show more content…
First of all, as suggested by Griffith, I support the notion that free choices and actions are determined by one’s character, including one’s beliefs, values, and reasons (25). These actions that are freely performed therefore have an absolute cause, and thus free will and determinism are compatible. If one were to propose that free will and causal determinism are not compatible, meaning that one would be an incompatibilist, then one would be suggesting that choices and actions are not determined by one’s character. Therefore, if these actions are not determined, then they occur by chance. This idea is unreasonable because it suggests that even if one prefers one choice over another, there is a chance they will act in a way contradictory to their preference even if they are not forced to do …show more content…
Additionally, as I have argued above, if free will and causal determinism were incompatible, then moral responsibility could never be assigned if causal determinism were true. Since I support soft determinism and therefore believe that causal determinism is true, I am inclined to believe that free will and causal determinism are compatible and that moral responsibility is not threatened. Moreover, although events are fixed, since they are determined by one’s character, judgments about moral responsibility are unaffected. One acts freely and in accordance with their beliefs, values, and reasons, and are therefore morally responsible even though causal determinism is true. For all of the above reasons, causal determinism does not threaten free will, despite the beliefs of
First of all, as suggested by Griffith, I support the notion that free choices and actions are determined by one’s character, including one’s beliefs, values, and reasons (25). These actions that are freely performed therefore have an absolute cause, and thus free will and determinism are compatible. If one were to propose that free will and causal determinism are not compatible, meaning that one would be an incompatibilist, then one would be suggesting that choices and actions are not determined by one’s character. Therefore, if these actions are not determined, then they occur by chance. This idea is unreasonable because it suggests that even if one prefers one choice over another, there is a chance they will act in a way contradictory to their preference even if they are not forced to do …show more content…
Additionally, as I have argued above, if free will and causal determinism were incompatible, then moral responsibility could never be assigned if causal determinism were true. Since I support soft determinism and therefore believe that causal determinism is true, I am inclined to believe that free will and causal determinism are compatible and that moral responsibility is not threatened. Moreover, although events are fixed, since they are determined by one’s character, judgments about moral responsibility are unaffected. One acts freely and in accordance with their beliefs, values, and reasons, and are therefore morally responsible even though causal determinism is true. For all of the above reasons, causal determinism does not threaten free will, despite the beliefs of