'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. 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.
He then trounces the argument, saying, “If we use the causal argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect uncaused cause. The most it would entitle one to conclude is that the cause is powerful enough and imperfect enough to have created the sort of world we know.”1 He then states that because the world is imperfect, and because we see a great deal of unnecessary evil, if we reason that there is a creator at all, he must be either “a malevolent powerful being or . . . a well-intentioned muddler.”2 It would seem that Mr. McCloskey assumes that the universe as we know it (with its current defects) must be the world as it was created, without considering the theist’s appeal to special revelation as to why this may be so.
It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinison with the concept of free will. There are 3 different views on determinism. Hard determinism, which is the belief that we have no free will, our actions are already planned so therefore we have no moral responsibility. On the other end of the scale there’s libertarianism, this is the belief that we have absolute free will, so we have full moral responsibility of our actions. And in between these 2 theories there is compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism, this is the belief that our actions are free but they are conditioned.
Didion’s thoughts on how grief approaches us shows that grief just comes out of the ordinary, and when it comes it does not compliment our anticipations nor does it inform us that it is approaching. Gilbert’s supporting ideas on imagination elaborate on Didion’s perspective on expectation and reveals that we must be prepared for the worst, and since we can not predict future outcomes we should “practice” accepting and rejecting the outcomes we believe will occur. Didion states “Grief, when it comes, is nothing we expect it to be (Didion 10).” Didion explains, that what we expect is nothing compared to what actually happens. We can’t necessarily predict the Sheikh 2 outcome of a certain event, such as grief. As Didion explains, our expectations don’t always match up to what grief has to offer, Gilbert’s supporting claims relate to Didion’s feelings on expectations.
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. This idea can be most clearly seen in psychological approaches such as the biological or the behaviourist. Other approaches such as the cognitive approach present the idea of soft determinism, the suggestion that whilst some behaviour is determined we still have some degree of control and choice over what we do. The most firm believers in free will are humanistic psychologists. The humanistic approach has been praised for its great emphasis on autonomy, the idea that we have control over everything we do.
It appears that the truth varies depending on the system that is employed. For the psychoanalyst the only truth stems from the unconscious and is not indicative of evident behaviour. While for the behaviourist, evident behaviour is the truth and the mind should not be used to assess what is true in regards to a client’s
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
The amendments adopt a confusing process of non-confidential parenting coordination that allows testimony on the basis of recommendations about long-term parenting arrangements made during a process designed to help parties resolve parenting issue, with no compliance with custody evaluation standards or with the statutory duties of a guardian ad litem. Mandating the admissibility of such unreliable evidence may violate the due process rights of the parents if courts rely on such testimony in making decisions. Likely, clients will not understand the process choices or have adequate informed consent of the perils of making admissions against interest to such individuals or being seen as noncompliant and non-cooperative from the PC’s perspective. 2. The amendments require disclosure by the parenting coordinator, whether confidential or otherwise, of the substance of any communication by a participant, such as a lawyer for one of the parties, to all the other parties and lawyers, so that effectively there can be no caucus style communication, proven to be a very effective tool in mediation of parenting issues.
We cannot claim or infer with any confidence that we know the weight on the hidden side. This is the same with our world. We can see the effect but not the cause. Therefore, we cannot assume the cause with certainty if we cannot see
logical) evidence, and are sometimes based on a single experience or observation.” (Mcleod, 2013) No one can predict the behavior of another person because we all have free will, the decision to choose whether we act or not. Psychology can then be described as the attempt to understand why a person behaved a certain way, but psychologists can in no way, shape or form predict the probability of the same person repeating a specific