Free-Will And Determinism

1

The Compatibility of Free Will and Determinism

2

The Compatibility of Free Will and Determinism
One of the biggest issues regarding criminal activity is deciding how to assign moral responsibility to each situation. This critical question has caused the world to take a step back, ponder the origination of individual choices, and decide whether people are determined or not.
Determinism supports the claim that “all events are the necessary result of previous causes” (Lawhead, 267). Therefore, a determinist would say that our choices are inevitable outcomes of the causal order. Incompatibilism claims that determinism is not compatible with the sort of freedom required to be morally responsible for our behavior. On the other
To assess the compatibilism of free will and determinism, it is important to understand

the term causation. Supporters of causality believe that we are determined and argue that everything that happens in nature and in human behavior is inevitable. In other words, we can not act otherwise, because the past shapes the future. John Stuart Mill, a 19th century philosopher, supports this idea: “given the motives which are present to an individual’s mind, and given likewise the character and disposition of the individual, the manner in which he will act might be unerringly inferred: that if we knew the person thoroughly, and knew all the inducements which are acting upon him, we could foretell his conduct with as much certainty as we can predict any physical event” (Lawhead, 267). On the other hand, other theorists would argue that determinism would strip us of our humanity. The philosophical school of thought which maintains that free will and determinism cannot co-exist is called the incompatibilist approach. There are two categories of incompatible determinism: hard determination and libertarianism. I will explain these two theories to you, in order for you to understand
Castle refutes this claim by saying, “it’s easy to argue lawfulness after the fact. But let’s see you predict what I will do in advance” (Lawhead, 274). According to the libertarian approach, because all choices are not subject to causal necessity, and are often free and spontaneous, it is not possible to predict every

5

aspect of a person’s behavior. If human actions were determined, we would be able to predict a person’s daily activities as we are able to predict the weather. Since we are not able to do so, I must assume that we are not determined and therefore, do have free will. The arguments of both libertarianism and hard determinism are premises for supporting my central claim of incompatibility. Possible objections to my central claim are evident in arguments of theorists who support soft determinism. Soft determinism is the theory that both free will and determinism are compatible, and that they can occur simultaneously. Different from the hard determinist, the soft determinist claims that although we are determined, we do have control over some of our choices. Compatibilists claim that: “if the immediate cause of your action is your