Everything about Libertarianism Philosophy totally explained
Libertarianism is a philosophical position in
metaphysics with respect to
free will and
determinism. It entails the belief that human beings possess free will, that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that determinism is
false.
Although not held by the majority of contemporary philosophers, libertarianism is still widely discussed and avidly defended by several leading philosophers in the field, such as
Peter van Inwagen,
Robert Kane, Timothy O'Connor and Laura Ekstrom.
Introduction
All metaphysical libertarians subscribe to the position of
incompatibilism which states that an action can't be both free and physically predetermined in the commonly understood sense. Free actions for the libertarian are ones which could have been different. Traditionally, this has meant that there's no
causal chain that necessitated the action prior to the agent freely choosing it; the agent is an
originator of causal chains. Libertarianism is contrasted with determinism, which holds that all human actions are predetermined, and
compatibilism, which argues determinism is compatible with free will.
In rejecting compatibilism, libertarians have developed alternative positions on the relationship between free will and determinism. One perspective is that humans have a special exemption from the determinism that applies to everything else—for example a
soul or
dualistically-conceived mind. This position is referred to as
supernatural libertarianism. Alternatively, the libertarian may claim that the world in general isn't strictly deterministic, and humans (and perhaps other entities) are able to exploit the resulting "elbow room" to make free decisions. This is
naturalistic libertarianism.
Definitions
"Free will"
Free will is defined as "The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances".
"Elbow room"
To say that actions are not brought about necessarily and inevitably means they could have been performed differently. One way of thinking about this is to imagine that one can "rewind history".
If libertarian free will holds, things will turn out differently. Actions can only occur if they're
possible. Libertarian free will requires that there's more than one possible outcome to a given situation (for supernaturalists, this will only be where humans are involved). History, metaphorically,
has multiple tracks. These additional options are sometimes called "elbow room". For determinists, there's only one possible outcome to a physical state-of-affairs, which is whatever actually occurs, and is also what must occur of necessity; actuality, possibility and necessity collapse together for the determinist.
The definition given also requires rationality. One of the major problems for libertarians is reconciling
rationality (control, planning, purpose, accountability) with elbow-room.
"Determinism"
A classic definition of causal determinism is
Laplace's:-
"An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before our eyes".
Initial arguments for libertarianism
Introspection
All human beings, claims the libertarian, have experience of being a self-determining being. We are all aware of the free choices we've made.
Appeal to the experience of decision making
We all have experience of deliberating, of weighing factors which could influence our decisions and this often takes a long time.
Free choice necessary for moral responsibility
Libertarians claim that without free-will, our practices of morally praising some and condemning others
has no rational basis. We don't hold people morally responsible if they couldn't have acted otherwise than they did (if they were under external duress, or suffer from an internal compulsion such as
kleptomania). However, determinism makes everyone unable to do other than as they did, so it follows that no-one is ever morally responsible.
Volition necessary for rationality
The libertarian claims that without free will, rationality is in a sense self-contradictory. The determinist, if her arguments are applied to herself, can't claim to have made a rational choice to believe in determinism, because she can't claim to have made a choice. Without volition, there's no difference between rational discourse and parotting. Her comments carry no more persuasive force than the message on an answering machine.
Originality and innovation
Determinists sometimes claim that we're not determined by our atoms and molecules so much as by the social and cultural forces on us. While these are no doubt an
influence, they can't add up strict determinism in every case, or we'd still be in the caves. Every new idea, social or technological, is something of a rebellion against the old order.
Physical indeterminism
Most critiques of free will point out that it's incompatible with determinism. However, the libertarian can point to the widespread acceptance of
indeterminism in
modern physics. Determinism needs to be proven: it isn't a self-evident truth. Also, there's such thing as
compatibilism, whereby someone believes that free will is compatible with determinism.
Initial objections
Introspection
For the determinists, this claim lends no support at all. The very process of consciously acknowledging what might be perceived as a decision or a decision making process is merely a deterministic event within the mind.
Appeal to the experience of decision making
The determinist response to this appeal is similar to their response to the appeal to introspection.
Benedict Spinoza claimed that this is merely evidence to support the argument that people believe in free will. For Spinoza, “Man believes himself to be free, simply because he's conscious of his actions“. However, this kind of skepticism can be extended to anything: perhaps we merely
believe we think or remember.
Skepticism, the libertarian points out, is a universal solvent.
If determinism could be proved conclusively (scientifically perhaps), it would have to be accepted that free will is an illusion (providing that all parties agree on
incompatibilism). But if one were to adopt the practice of dismissing things as illusions without good reason, one would probably end in a widely deprecated position such as
solipsism.
Free choice necessary for moral responsibility
Compatiblists are able to respond to this challenge by coming up with a determinism-friendly re-definition of "free choice" — typically, a choice that isn't made under duress. The "hard determinist" thinks no kind of freedom is compatible with determinism, and so has to bite the bullet -- to rethink praise and blame, crime and punishment, in a way such that freedom and moral judgment play no role. A typical counter-argument is that because people act as deterministic mechanisms, subsequent punishments and rewards are not intended as retribution, but are to be used rationally to rehabilitate those with deviant behavior. Some determinists argue that it makes more sense to reject moral condemnation in favor of a more rational, technological approach aimed non-judgmentally at behaviour adjustment. They maintain that the moral responsibility argument is just an
appeal to consequences. However, it's difficult for them to exclude the suspicion that they're tacitly assuming we've a
choice, and a morally significant one, about how to deal with crime and punishment.
Volition necessary for rationality
The determinist can point out that determinism doesn't prevent people from reaching the best conclusions — it just prevents them doing so freely.
Alternatively, he can take a more compatibilist approach and re-think the nature of decision-making. He can claim that he can go through an intellectual process of weighing up alternatives, even if the eventual decision is a foregone conclusion. The process is just a necessary way of getting to the conclusion, just as a computer program needs to go through certain steps to reach the answer. (And can even perform "choices" — if-then statements — of a deterministic kind).
Originality and innovation
The determinist can claim that we're "condemned to freedom", that innovation, creativity and rebelliousness have deterministic machinery behind them. A person could, for instance, point to the fact that adolescents can be predicted to behave rebelliously. However, that'll have to appeal to determinism at the atoms-and-molecules level at some stage in order to remove the suspicion that the rebellion and innovation tolerated by society isn't the
metaphysical liberty that the libertarian believes in.
Physical indeterminism
The unpredictable nature of
quantum mechanics isn't sufficient to prove libertarianism — in fact it isn't sufficient to prove
indeterminism, since deterministic events could still be unpredictable as the result of complexity or unknown causal factors. However, many physicists believe that quantum mechanics is indeterministic and not just unpredictable. Even so, indeterminism isn't sufficient to prove libertarianism, which might be compatible with both determinism and indeterminism.
Supernatural libertarianism
Proposal
For the supernaturalistic libertarian although causality applies to the inanimate and animal worlds, it can't extend to human actions and decisions. Although, personality and physical appearance are effected by causality, the moral self is capable of free choice; and overcomes the predispositions of personality.
For example, a
kleptomaniac in a shop would have a natural predisposition, due to his illness to steal from said shop, but his moral self may overcome this desire, and a psychologist can't say with complete certainty whether he'll steal or not. A determinist would argue that the psychologist isn't aware of all the causes; an awareness of being watched, fear of arrest by the police, and other such reasons that the psychologist isn't aware of, could have prevented the action.
The position of the supernatural libertarian can be theologically attractive in systems like Christianity because it offers a solution to the problem of moral evil. If a deity has created beings with libertarian free will, then those beings are not merely automatons. The deity need not foreknow the actual actions of those beings, but may merely foreknow the infinite range of possible actions that each human who could ever possibly exist will take. The deity isn't responsible for evil either by direct cause of creating creatures that do evil or by casting a blind eye to foreknowledge that that'll do evil. The evil isn't predetermined and is only a possibility. The equal possibility is that the creatures may do good. The desirability of such libertarian creatures existing is vastly superior to their non-existence and so the deity has accepted the risk of a creating a fallible being as preferable to the creation of mere automatons or the non-creation of creatures.
However, many schools of theology reject libertarianism out of hand because it doesn't comply with their traditional views of predestination and divine foreknowledge.
In supernatural libertarianism, the free will is posited as a supernatural component of the psyche that acts alongside any natural components. The psyche wouldn't have free will if this supernatural component were not present.
Objections
Advances in
neuroscience make an immaterial mind increasingly unnecessary to explain observed phenomena, and thereby make
dualistic explanations decreasingly likely.
Rebuttal
Regardless,
dualism still lives on, chiefly because of the
hard problem of consciousness.
The determinist should also be careful to distinguish between the claims that:
- We know the causes of behaviour, inasmuch as it's caused.
and
- Behaviour is determined and we know the causes.
While brain science has found increasing determinism,
fundamental physics has pulled out the rug by uncovering indeterminism. The possible influence of indeterminism at the quantum level on the
macroscopic level is
hotly disputed. This leads on to naturalistic libertarianism.
Natural libertarianism
Proposal
Naturalistic libertarians believe that the universe contains an indeterminstic element, for instance as demonstrated by
quantum mechanics, and that human beings exploit this to achieve freedom of choice. There is no separate, dualistic self in this theory: the self is the total activity of the brain as a system.
Objections
An objection to naturalistic libertarianism is that it remains a mystery why an agent makes the choice she does — any explanation of the choice (beyond a probabilistic one) would seem to make it determined. However, according to
David Hume, if a choice isn't determined then it's simply a random event, which is problematic since such a choice would lack purpose.
Although
quantum mechanics provides some reason for thinking that determinism may indeed be false,
Roy C. Weatherford (in the
Oxford Companion to Philosophy) echoes Hume on randomness: "The random behavior of atoms certainly doesn't by itself make for the freedom and moral responsibility asserted by libertarians."
Rebuttal
Human decision-making isn't an individual event occurring at the atomic level, it's a very complex process involving billions of neurons. It is often assumed that indeterminism can only come into play as part of a complex process of decision-making when the deterministic element has reached an impasse, and indeterminism has the "casting vote" (like an internalised version of tossing a coin when you can't make up your mind). This model (which is roughly that advocated by
Robert Kane) has the advantage that you've some level of commitment to both courses of action; neither is exactly against your wishes. It is, however, not so good for rationality and self-control. The indetermistic coin-toss can reasonably be seen as
the crucial cause of your decision, yet it isn't under your control.
Another solution is to move the indetermistic element back in the decision-making process. One functional unit proposes multiple ideas and courses of action, which are then pruned back by a more-or-less deterministic process, which filters out anything too wild or irrational.
Nonetheless, in a "rewinding history" scenario, the individual could have acted differently, as required by libertarian free will, because the random unit could have come out with different proposals — and it would still be something they wanted to do, because it wouldn't have been translated into action without the consent of the rest of the neural apparatus.
Agent causation
Agent-causal accounts of free will appeal to a special kind of causality holding between persons and events rather than between events and other events. It is a matter of some debate whether they're libertarian or
compatibilist.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Libertarianism Philosophy'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://libertarianism__metaphysics.totallyexplained.com">Libertarianism (metaphysics) Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
