DETERMINISM VS. LIBERTARIANISM

The notion that we control our destinies is a very difficult feeling to shake.  At this moment in time, as I sit at my desk typing this article on my laptop, I feel like I could stop writing at any moment if I wanted to.  I could get up and eat a sandwich if I felt like it.  I could do any of these things because I, and only I, wanted to.  It’s comforting to believe that I possess sole agency in my life.  However, both libertarians and determinists put forth compelling arguments:

A central argument for hard determinism is that since the material universe is deterministic, there is no reason why humans should not also be deterministic since we are part of the material universe.  To elaborate, the material world is nothing more than a hodgepodge of atoms, which behave according to a set law of physics.  Therefore, the behavior of these atoms, which is nothing more than primitive cause-and-effect interactions between particles, can be predicted.  Since us humans are also composed of these same atoms, there is no reason why our brain chemistry is also nothing more than a primitive set of cause-and-effect interactions between particles that can be predicted.

This proposition was put forth by the 5th century BCE Greek philosopher Leucippus.  Leucippus was the first person to suggest the theory of atomism, the notion that everything in the universe is made of inseparable atoms that behave according to a rigid set of physical laws.  This concept can be succinctly summed up by the philosopher himself: “nothing happens in vain, but everything from reason and by necessity.”  Nothing happens randomly but instead as a necessary and inevitable outcome of something else.

Meanwhile, 20th-century American philosopher and libertarian Robert Kane puts forth his own argument to rebut determinism.  First, he outlines two points to operate as the foundation of his argument:

1. The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent’s power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely
2. Determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise)

Essentially, Kane reasons that in order to disprove determinism, he merely has to prove the existence of a human’s ability to make alternative decisions.  Note that in order to prove the existence of alternative decisions, he only needs to prove it exists in at least one case.  He doesn’t have to prove that all human decisions are driven by free will- just that some are driven by free will.

Kane suggests “self-forming actions” as an example of when humans are capable of making alternative decisions.  Kane describes self-forming actions as moments of indecision where you feel very conflicted and unable to resolve a “right” answer.  In these moments, the decision you are going to make is completely undetermined and no part of your character or life history predisposes you towards one option, hence the indecisiveness.  These, according to Kane, would be decisions that could not be seen past even with a super-calculator.  Whatever decision you make in a self-forming action is one that you can be held accountable for because it was you and not your “inherited” character that made the decision.  Therefore, all the future choices you make as a result of your self-formed decision are also ones you are accountable for.

However, at the end of the day, both hard determinism and libertarianism remain only theories because they cannot be proven or disproven.  It can be worth investigating central arguments for both sides, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?  Perhaps not…