Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability. There are several different supporting views for this belief. Hard determinism is underpinned by the work of Isaac Newton’s theory of scientific laws which is that we are completely governed by these laws. According to these laws one does not have moral responsibility for their actions as they were predetermined by a ‘higher power’. Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism.
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
They consider the possibility that human beings are controlled by external forces and are not able to exercise free will. The argument that free will and determinism are compatible, is best challenged by soft determinists. This is the idea that our actions are controlled by external forces to a certain extent, but we should still be held accountable for what we choose to do. Finally, predestination claims that a deity is the ultimate cause who determines all human actions. All Christians to a certain extent believe that free will plays an important role in their lives (most commonly seen in their faith and actions).
The idea of good will for Kant is the starting point for morality. Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason. This will mean total effort involved in making a conscious moral choice. In his writings critique of practical reason he states ‘it is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world except a good will’. Kant wanted to put good will at the very centre of ethics in which he formed the equation GOOD WILL + DUTY = A MORAL ACTION.
“Free will is an illusion. What seems to be freely chosen behaviour is really the result go internal and external forces acting upon the individual” Discuss this view. Quite simply, the idea of free will is that individuals have complete control over their life and their destiny. Believers of free will are of the opinion that human behaviour is the result of choices which each individual makes for themselves; external factors do not influence behaviour in any way. In total opposition to this belief is determinism, the theory that all behaviour is pre-ordained and we cannot chose our destiny so to speak.
Immanuel Kant puts forward an argument from deontological ethics and therefore is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and obligations, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus the ends of any action do not justify the means, i.e. if someone were to do their moral duties, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. Thus, rules come above all else according to Kant. Kant argues that only one fact is undisputable, and that simply is that there is a moral law in existence, which then leads to the existence of God.
Unlike consequentialist views of ethics, Kant's philosophy has been focusing on the intention of acts rather than the consequences of acts. The formula of humanity as it ends in itself prohibits all kinds of manipulation and exploitation of individuals for selfish or even altruistic ends, and specifically demand to respect each and every one's interest. Kant claims that 'rational nature' or 'the human being and in general every rational being' exist "as end in itself", thus, valuing rational nature have the capacity to set ends for oneself. Rational human, is an autonomous and moral agents, who can act in accordance with moral law. Thus they are ‘above all price’.
The conflicting philosophical idea of “free will” is determinism, wherein supporters of this thesis believe that everything on earth (as well as the metaphysical) is predestined. For the proponents of metaphysical libertarianism, they believe that determinism is just a fiction of the mind, and that free will does exist (or to such a point). On the other hand, those who oppose this thought are called hard determinists, in which they claim that the idea of determinism is true and that people do not have free will. But of all the debates related to free will vs. determinsim, the argument on existence vs. essence is perhaps the most prevalent one. Essentialism, a philosophical thought that seems to favour the religious ones, believe that every phenomenon here on Earth follows a pattern and that the events (and the outcomes of it) are predictable.
Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral. For each of these philosophies, the question of living the "good life" is an intricate part of the belief system. For the Utilitarians, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is done entirely because of obligation. He also makes the distinction between motives, saying that an action can be "in accord with duty" and still be immoral.
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.