Determinism: Difference between revisions

== '''Definitions''' ==

According the [[Free will|article about free will]], determinism can be defined as “''the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature.”''<ref>Timpe, Kevin (n.d.). Free Will. ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL= <nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/#H3</nowiki>

↑ ^{[[Free will#cite ref-:1 3-0|Jump up to:3.0]]} ^{[[Free will#cite ref-:1 3-1|3.1]]}</ref>

Again referring to the [[Free will|article about free will]], free will (also called indeterminism) refers to having the full control to independently decide, which actions to carry out. In other words, free will can be described as ''"a significant kind of control over one’s actions”''<ref>O’Connor, Timothy and Christopher Franklin (2022). Free Will. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/freewill</nowiki></ref>, as cited in the article.

The idea that every event is caused by previous events and conditions, along with the natural laws that govern them, implying that all actions and decisions are the result of prior causes (Hoefer, 2023).<ref>Hoefer, C. (2023, September 21). Causal Determinism. ''Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</nowiki></ref>

The idea that all propositions (statements), including those about the future, must be either true or false. This means that the [[truth]] or falsity of statements about future events is already fixed, even if those events have not yet occurred (Vihvelin, 2022, under “1. Preliminaries”).<ref name=":0">Vihvelin, K. (2022, August 22). Arguments for Incompatibilism. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/</nowiki></ref>

The idea that an omniscient God exists, who knows about the [[truth]] or falsity of all propositions, including those about the future, leading to the question of how free will can exist when God already infallibly knows all that is going to happen (Vihvelin, 2022, under “1. Preliminaries”).<ref name=":0" />

As explained in the [[Free will|article about free will]], compatibilism is the idea that determinism is fully compatible with free will, and also that the freedom or abscence of freedom of an action is defined independently from its determination or causation, but by whether the action is caused by the person in question itself or another person or circumstance. Moreover, compatibilism states that causation and determination are a necessity for free and responsible action.<ref name=":1">Russell, P. (2020, May 27). Hume on free will. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/#FreWilHumRel</nowiki></ref>

The idea opposite to [[compatibilism]], claiming that determinism is incompatible with [[free will]].

== '''Philosophers on Determinism and the consequences''' ==

Newton's fundamental laws, formulated back in 1687<ref>Scheck, F. (2018). ''Mechanics: From Newton's laws to deterministic chaos''. Springer.</ref>, imply that the behaviour of all matter in the world is governed by universal patterns, making him a supporter of the idea of determinism:<blockquote>“I. Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform rectilinear motion, except if it is compelled by forces acting on it to change that state.

(Scheck, 2018, p. 2)</blockquote>

As one of the founders of classical [[compatibilism]], David Hume claims that both determinism and [[free will]] coexist (Russell, 2020, under “1. ‘Liberty and Necessity’ – The Classical Reading”).<ref name=":1" />

As a consequence of determinism, Hume questions religion by claiming that all evil in the world would thus be directly attributed to God, and not the individuals performing the acts of crime, making them completely [[Draft:Moral|morally]] unaccountable for their actions (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”).<ref name=":1" />

The existence of freedom, which according to Kant is necessary for our ability to make judgements based on [[ethics]] and apply reason directly opposes the idea of determinism. “Reason creates for itself the idea of a spontaneity that can, on its own, start to act–without, i.e., needing to be preceded by another cause by means of which it is determined to action in turn, according to the law of causal connection, Kant says” (as cited in McCormick, n.d., under "8.a. – Kant’s Ethics: Reason and Freedom").<ref name=":2">McCormick, M. (n.d.). Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' URL=<nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#SH8a</nowiki></ref>

Kant claims that our ability to reason and follow a framework of ethical rules gives us a choice and hence makes us ethically responsible for our actions, unlike animals whose actions, due to the lack of reason, are a just a result of [[Causation|causality]] and determination, which removes all ethical accountability from animal predators (McCormick, n.d., under "7.b – The Idea of Reason: Reason and Freedom").<ref name=":2" />

While claiming that he cannot prove or disprove [[free will]], William James believes in Indeterminism based on his own practical point of view, which states that the assumption of determinism would render the regret of bad life events completely pointless and thus, unlike the pessimists, optimists and subjectivists, perhaps being able to accept that, he himself could not live with it.

Furthermore, he posits that for people to accept and act on basic [[Draft:Moral|moral]] concepts, it requires them to [[Belief|believe]] in their ability to use free will and freely influence their environment (Pomerleau, n.d., under "6.a. – Freedom and Morality – Human Freedom").<ref>Pomerleau, W. P. (n.d.). William James (1842-1910). ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' URL=<nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/#SH6a</nowiki></ref>

As a materialist and determinist, David Lewis believes that the evolution of this [[world]] from any given point in time, given the laws of nature and the state of the world at that time, is determined, if the past, along with the laws of nature, is fixed.