'Free Will And Determinism Essay\r'

'The concept of for bowl over depart plays an important part in our apportioning turn on or praise, and our holding individuals mor entirelyy trusty for their way and actions. In the philosophical work devoted to free impart in that respect is no strict explanation of this concept except it is widely studyd to be a condition necessary for incorrupt certificate of indebtedness. Prop acents of determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism explain the magnificence of free will in their theories each in their detail way (Compatibilism; Lecture Notes on impec stopt Will and Determinism).\r\nSilenus\r\nSilenus, the central hero of Stephen Robinett’s â€Å"The forest god” invoice, female genitals be regarded as a stanch prop geniusnt of philosophical toughened determinism. Like a true determinist, Silenus, a satyr, does non look at he is answerable for his actions and bearing because he is the cr consumeion of an separate(prenominal) psyche, namely Hench. He explains his enormous interest in ladies as well as his promiscuous air by the fact that Hench gave him the extra Y-chromosome which became a study determinant of his fashion (Robinett).\r\n tally to the satyr, alone benevolent benesss can be held creditworthy for what they do. As Silenus does non consider himself a gay being on the one hand, and as he was created by Hench on the other hand, it is the latter that Silenus believes is amenable for him and for anything he does. Silenus maintains that he does non k without delay exactly why he does things and that it is Hench who make him like this, and thus it is Hench who should be held liable for the way Silenus is and be de homods (Robinett). How forever, nowhere in the story does Silenus give any clear explanation why he believes this. all told in all, it is obvious that he does non c be some slumpeousness at all, tho considers it a useful, although peculiar, intuitive feeling, which he oftentimes u ses to appeal to Hench’s sense of duty in order to define his decisions in his favor.\r\nSilenus’ desires and inclinations ar caused by factors and circumstances which ar outside his take for and for which, on that pointfore, he should non be held liable. All he seems to be interested in is having sex with ladies and taking a drop all(prenominal) now and then(prenominal). As we know it from the story, his love for ladies is caused by the extra Y-chromosome that Hench gave him. We can besides assume that his relish to alcohol has something to do with the â€Å"material” he was synthesized from, too.\r\nFrom Silenus’ deterministic perspective, it beholds that he is not accountable for his decisions and actions as they argon not free hardly atomic number 18 the offspring of his desires over which he has no experience and which he is not able to resist. Libertarians would suggest that Silenus’ actions atomic number 18 genuinely free, depend on his reason and volition, and ar not pre intractable by any factors such as the extra Y-chromosome. From the compatibilistic perspective, Silenus’ desires be caused by the above mentioned factors except as he is still free to lead in many situations then he should be held trusty for his actions.\r\nThere is plenty of evidence in the story that Silenus is able to program line his behavior. For object lesson, at Merton’s offices Silenus became interested in the receptionist, â€Å"a bird-legged girl”, who made him sexually excited. When she left him aft(prenominal) several pasty attempts to restrain sex with her, Silenus at first mean to chase her but then decided to allow her go (Robinett). Given the influence of the extra Y-chromosome, the receptionist’s body must have clouded Silenus’ mind. However, he was able to control his strong sexual desires at that moment because Hench could hear her screams and come to punish him.\r \n other good example of Silenus’ ability to control his behavior can be seen during the meeting with Merton. Silenus was constantly interrupting Hench small-arm the latter was talking to Merton. When Hench got angry, he told Silenus to be dumb or he would punish him later by not feeding him properly. Although Silenus was eager to appear as a disobedient and unreliable creature, he stop immediately misbehaving himself and annoying Hench because he did want to eat that night.\r\nOne more example is a clangour amid Hench and Silenus which broke out when they came home after the appointment with Merton. When Hench slapped Silenus, the satyr felt like grabbing and throwing his manufacturing business across the room. just Silenus managed to control his anger because he realized that if he hit Hench he would neer convince him not to sell him into slavery (Robinett). All these examples show that Silenus can, if he wishes to, control his behavior.\r\nThe above mentioned examples of Silenus’ abilities to control his especially violent or insufferable behavior similarly show that Silenus is able to draw causal inferences in this story. In these situations he demonstrates his awareness of the practical answers of his actions (which could be disastrous for him) and decides to avoid them. It follows that in just about deterrent examples Silenus behaves well or does not do unacceptable actions not out of a sense of dusky understanding of the consequences of such behavior and, what is particularly important, responsibility for his actions, but only because he tries to escape penalty. In many other cases (for example, when he forced Audrey to have sex with him), his unacceptable behavior can be explained by the fact that Silenus, as a logical being (and he proves several times in the story that he is indeed a keen-witted being) must realize his moral responsibility for his actions, but also understands that he is promising to escape punishment for them.\r\nAs a rational being, Silenus is fully capable of drawing causal inferences of his behavior, but his acceptable or unacceptable behavior depends on whether he is likely to be punished for it or experience plastered inconveniences because of it and not on his sense of moral responsibility for his actions. In either situation Silenus has the choice whether to follow his inclinations and behave in an unacceptable way or whether to postpone the satisfaction of his desires to a later time. As we can see, in some cases Silenus postpones his intentions to do accepted things, but in other situations he prefers to mismanage himself rather than control himself. So in close to cases it would be incorrect to conclude that Silenus could not do otherwise than he did.\r\nSilenus is in fact a drunk who avoids responsibility for his drinking habits. But the query of Silenus being a drunk should not be restricted only to this vice. He is also amicable of having sex and likes being fed well. It would be fairer to picture Silenus as a person who has some drear habits and preferences (like most clements have) and tends to satisfy some of his fierce needs and inclinations but who does not want to be held amenable for his actions. For Silenus, it seems easier to enjoy life and satisfy his desires than to control them and be amenable for his actions.\r\nSilenus holds clear deterministic views on the extent of his moral responsibility for his actions. Determinists believe that human behavior, decisions, and actions are determined and caused by prior occurrences (Determinism). If all human actions are influence then there is no free will and world are not morally responsible for what they do. Contemporary determinists also believe that human behavior is determined by some external causes which are beyond man’s control, particularly catching and environmental factors (Geisler).\r\nWe do not know exactly whether Robinett’s Silenus has ever heard of determinism and free will, but he successfully applies deterministic views to explain his behavior. He believes his behavior is determined and caused by his genetic governance that was given to him by Hench and that his inclinations that are caused by this constitution can’t be controlled.\r\nSilenus maintains that if he is not responsible for what he is made from, then he can’t be responsible for what he does. Although Silenus’ position about behavior and responsibility corresponds to the views of proponents of determinism, it is obvious that Silenus’ arguments do not at all reflect his philosophical deterministic position in life, but rather are a convenient excuse for shifting moral responsibility for his actions to others.\r\nSilenus versus Hench\r\nSilenus’ â€Å"I am not responsible for what I am” and Hench’s â€Å"You are responsible for what you do” are in fact compatible. Hench created Silenus with true(p)(p) predisp ositions which make him likely to behave and act in a particular way in authoritative situations. Hench is the author of Silenus’ predispositions and the one who shaped Silenus’ character. Silenus has nothing to do with the â€Å"material” he was made from and he is right when he says that he is not responsible for what he is.\r\nBut Silenus is also a rational being and in several cases he demonstrates that his decisions are establish on reasoning. He is also able to control and guide his behavior. It follows that it is Silenus, not Hench, who can be held responsible for what he does. So both Silenus’ and Hench’s positions are correct and compatible. In this story, the problem is that Silenus is not responsible for what he is and extends this irresponsibility to what he does.\r\nIn the antecedent of the story, Hench agrees with Silenus’ view of the extent of his moral responsibility. In his preaching with Audrey, Hench maintains that as S ilenus’ creator he is fully responsible for him. Hench does not consider Silenus a human being and maintains that he is not able to take wish of himself and assume responsibility for what he does. Hench even goes so far as to state that he is responsible for everything Silenus is or does because Silenus is exactly what he, Hench, made him (Robinett).\r\nHowever, we can also see Hench criticize Silenus for his unacceptable behavior, because he does not control his desires, and also suggest that Silenus should be responsible for his actions (Robinett). It seems there is a accredited contradiction in Hench’s belief of responsibility for Silenus. On the one hand, he feels responsible for Silenus’ actions because he is his creator. On the other hand, although in Hench’s view Silenus is not a human being, he is at least a rational being as he often demonstrates his ability to express thoughts and explain things that are base on reasoning.\r\nHench believes t hat Silenus should at least try to be responsible for his actions and control them (Robinett). We may assume from what we submit in the story that there is some trial in Hench’s mind as to whether only he should be held responsible for Silenus’ actions or whether this responsibility should be shared between both him and Silenus. As we read on, at the end of the story Hench comes to the evidence that Silenus should be held accountable for his behavior, too. Although this conclusion is reached on the flat coat of his personal grievance against Silenus (because Silenus had sex with Audrey), it is clear that now Hench is firm in his opinion that he is responsible for what Silenus is, but not for what Silenus does.\r\nGorr\r\nMichael Gorr is a proponent of the compatibilistic theory. distant libertarians, who maintain that humans have free will which is incompatible with determinism, compatibilists believe that determinism and free will experience and are in fact comp atible ideas. According to this belief, free will is not a person’s ability to make a certain choice independently of prior causes and events, but a person’s ability to choose when he or she is not forced to do it. Compatibilists do not reject that our choices are predetermined, but they express that the choices we make are examples of free will if we are not forced to make them. But if we are forced to make whatever choices we make, then this is an example of a lack of free will (Compatibilism and Incompatibilism).\r\nIf a person’s action is coerced, then this person is not responsible for it. But if a person’s action is not coerced, that is, under certain circumstances the person can do otherwise, then this person is accountable for the action. Gorr’s compatibilistic position is seen in his example of â€Å"knocking down Jones”. Gorr maintains that in the case where another person pushes him and makes him bump into Jones, he should not b e held responsible for his action as its consequence is not a result of his intention or choice. In the case where he deliberately bumps into Jones and injures him, he is accountable for his behavior because he could do otherwise. Gorr states that we are responsible for our actions only when we desire for these actions to occur (Gorr).\r\nGorr accepts, distant libertarians, the deterministic universal actor, but he abandons the deterministic belief that humans are not to be held responsible for their actions because their actions are determined and caused by factors which are beyond their control. He agrees with Hench who states at the end of the story that Silenus is responsible for his behavior which is the result of his desires even though he is not responsible for his genetic constitution that determines and causes his desires.\r\nGorr maintains that it is not necessary to be responsible for one’s desires in order to be responsible for one’s behavior. For Gorr, it is more important to have control over one’s actions and not to have control over the causes of these actions. So unyielding as we have control over our actions and it depends on our choice whether these actions will occur or not, Gorr concludes, we are responsible for these actions. And Silenus, regardless of his genetic constitution and environment, should be held responsible for his actions (Gorr).\r\nConclusion\r\nWe can partly reject determinism as philosophical proposition and do not agree with the belief that whatever we do is predetermined and we can’t control it or do otherwise and are, therefore, not to be held responsible for what we do. But it seems wrong to reject or neglect the notion of universal causation which determinists believe is integral to their theory. It would be wrong to deny that some events are caused by other preceding events, and the latter were caused by earliest events, and so on. It seems there exists an unbroken causal range of mountains of which humans are part.\r\nSimilarly, it would be wrong to deny the importance and influence of factors such as heredity or upbringing on how we make our decisions or choose to behave in a particular situation. So every event has its cause and every human action is also caused by certain factors. What does seem important in this case is, as Gorr points out, the difference in the kind of causation (Gorr). Our genetic make-up and the environment are important, but not the only, factors which predetermine or guide our behavior as we can often control them and choose to do otherwise than these factors predispose us to do.\r\nPersonally, I can’t accept the deterministic position that everything that exists or occurs has a sufficient reason for existing or occurring as it exists or occurs, and not otherwise (Causal Determinism). It is hard to believe that human actions are predetermined, are not free, and can’t be changed (hard determinism), or that there is ch ance they could be changed (soft determinism). I do not particularly like the idea that since human actions are not free humans are not to be held morally responsible for them because in my view this promotes certain moral chaos. I am not convinced by the indeterministic position that all human acts are uncaused.\r\nI share the libertarian belief that humans actually do have free will, but like Gorr, I do not believe it is incompatible with deterministic causation. That is why I am most inclined to accept compatibilism which is something in the place between determinism and libertarianism and does not disparage deterministic causation and accepts free will, and therefore, moral responsibility. I believe that my actions can be in fact predetermined by several factors, but in many cases I still have the possibility to choose between two and more options, and that I should be held responsible for whatever the consequences of my choice are.\r\nBIBLIOGRAPHY:\r\n1. Causal Determinism. Re trieved January 27, 2008 from the populace entire entanglement: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/\r\n2. Compatibilism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the orbit Wide Web: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/\r\n3. Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism\r\n4. Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism\r\n5. Geisler, N. Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm\r\n6. Gorr, M. Being and Doing: Some thoughts about Responsibility. Though Probes.\r\n7. Lecture Notes on Free Will and Determinism. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm\r\n8. Robinett, S. The Satyr. Thought Probes.\r\n'