Free Will and Determinism

Exam Question – “Critically assess the view that we are not responsible for our evil actions” (OCR June 2011 Q2)

The following answer by one of my students in the summer exam gained full marks 35/35. The mark scheme has not yet been published.  However the examiner’s report for this question is appended below (page 2 of the drop down menu). Two comments are worth making:

1.  Locke is a compatibilist, not a hard determinist – the purpose of his locked room analogy is not to establish hard determinism, but the distinction between voluntariness and freedom – the man is quite voluntarily in the locked room, but no-one would say he’s free to leave.

2. Kant is a compatibilist of a unique sort, not a libertarian, as he holds to the truth of determinism in the phenomonolgical realm, and at the same time, the truth of freedom in the noumenal realm.  In conversation with the author of the best recent book o Kant, Richard Dean, he put it like this “And as for which is really true, that humans are determined or that they’re free, the answer is that truth and falsity are the concern of theoretical reason, and so from that standpoint it is true that we’re determined and false that we’re free. But justification is the concern of practical reason, and from the standpoint of practical reason, the “true” claim that our action is determined is irrelevant, and we are justified in taking ourselves to be free”  (Richard Dean).

The belief that we are not responsible for our evil actions is the Hard Determinist view upheld by Philosophers such as Locke and Honderich; and to some extent Psychologists such as Freud. They account our actions either to a series of ‘cause and effect’, or the influence of our upbringing. In contrast, there are Libertarians such as Kant who believe that autonomy is crucial to our humanity. I personally take a Freudian, compatibilist approach, as I find that our upbringing can effect our actions but we are not causally determined by it, ‘we can be free’ (Vardy).

Hard Determinist view of Locke and Honderich is that we are not responsible for our evil actions. Locke presents us with a man asleep in a locked room, when he awakes he decides to remain in the room, even though he had ‘no free choice.’ As wells as this, Honderich agreed with Vative that ‘everything is connected’ and therefore everything is pre-determined. We are not morally responsible However, I disagree with this view as there is evidence of ‘Chaos Theory’, the randomness in human action, and also it means we would not lock away criminals because they are guilty but only to protect society. I find his view unreasonable as criminals still have choice.

Furthermore, there are Theological Determinists who are focused mainly in the Lutheran determinism of Christianity and believe that God has predestined everything. If this is the case then we are not responsible for our evil actions, God is. However, this view is dependant on the belief in God and also contradicts with the Biblical teaching of God being ‘omniscient.’

In contrast to this, there are also Libertarians, such as Kant, who believe that humans are completely autonomous. This sense of human autonomy is crucial to Kant’s belief in the Categorical Imperative with its formulation of ‘duty for duties sake’. For Kant absolute human autonomy of duty is crucial to achieving the Summum Bonum (highest good). However, this belief is dependent on the existence of the Categorical imperative, and also I find it unrealistic to achieve ‘duty for duties sake’. As well as this, it does not take into account the differing human circumstance, just absolute rule. This is why God giving us free will does not make us solely responsible for our actions as it does not take into account differing human circumstance.

Thirdly, Hume brought forward the idea of compatibilism between determinism and free will. He argued that ‘a stranger can infer our actins by observing our mood and behaviour. This assimilation of a causally determined will but with freedom of action I find convincing, but more so in the works of Freud. Freud argued that we are determined by our parents and surroundings, and we have learnt to please authority figures. This then explains Hume’s concept of a determined will, Freud also takes into account our own ability to rationalise. I agree with this view as it marks that we are not entirely responsible for our evil actions, but our parents, upbringing and society also play a crucial role. This is evident as the majority of criminals come from broken homes.

The argument was taken further by the American lawyer Clarence Darrow. Similarly to Freud he argued in the case of Leopold and Loeb that the education and upbringing of a child is crucial to their actions. He stated that crimes should be seen in the same way as hurricanes. Acts of nature. Although I agree with the Freudian aspect of Darrow’s argument. I don not find the argument that we are blameless for our evil actions convincing, or realistic in a society when actions do come down to our own choice, even if influenced by upbringing.

In contrast to this, scientists such as Dawkins and Galton have argued that there is a genetic reason for our actions. Dawkins believes we are merely ‘bytes and bytes of genetic code’ and our actions are due to the evolutionary state of our genes. However, Dawkins also argues that humans have developed ‘a lust to be nice’. So although our genes are responsible for our evil actions they have also developed the need to be nice making us partially responsible for our evil actions. Similarly, Galton talks about eugenic responsibility for our actions, but also the role of our upbringing. However, despite the scientific grounding in the case of eugenic responsibility for our actions it also seems evident that genetically similar beings do not always act in the same way. And we have developed a sophistication as a species that allows us to act independently, but influenced by our upbringing an society.

In conclusion, I believe that we are partially responsible for our evil actions as we are determined partially by our upbringing and society, but we also have the freedom to choose our actions within that determined state. I find both the arguments for compete determinism or Libertarianism either to robotic or not accountable enough for humanities actions.