Abstract
Various groups of philosphers have a different opinion on concept of freedom. It can be broadly classified as follows- Determinist view According to the determinists every event has a cause. Determinism does not say whether the cause is mental or physical, whether it is inorganic nature or organisms or people or God. As far as determinism is considered the cause can be anything. It is not even necessary that we know the cause of events. But determinism says that the events can be controlled if we know its cause before the occurrence of the event by human actions. But if every event is determined than the objection arises that then freedom of an individual is impossible. Everything that happens is caused by previously occurring conditions and these in turn are caused by conditions prior to them, so every event is related to causes indefinitely back in time. Therefore if every event is predetermined than how can freedom persist? Hard Determinism: Since everything (including human action) has a cause or causes that determine it to be what it is, there is no real freedom, only the illusion of freedom. People are not morally responsible for their actions (as if they could have done otherwise). Besides, we assume that training people to act in certain ways will influence (determine) future behavior. •Scientific determinism: since every event in nature has a cause or causes that account for its occurrence, and since human beings exist in nature, human acts and choices are as determined as anything else in the world. Behavior may be determined by many things (e.g., heredity, environment), but it certainly can be explained in terms of such causal factors. •Objections: oThough deterministic behaviorism can make predictions about unreflective (un-thought-out) responses to stimuli, it cannot predict how people will choose or act when they have had a chance to think through their decision. Furthermore, it cannot account for our ability to challenge and change the attitudes and desires that we have learned. oThough many things we do are explainable in terms of causes, some things we do can be explained only by appealing to reasons: that is, our decisions are often intelligible only by knowing what purposes or goals we had in mind when acting. Determinism assumes that there is only one way to explain behavior (viz., causes), when in fact there is another way of explaining behavior (viz., reasons) which is just as good. oSoft Determinism (also called Compatibilism): determinism is compatible with freedom and responsibility. Also called Self-Determinism: When we ourselves are the causes of actions, our actions are free. Two versions:
oPassive self-determinism: freedom means being able to do what we want. What we want (as expressed by personality or character) is determined by external events (e.g., genetics, culture, upbringing), but as long as we are able to act consistent with our choices, we are free. This position is called compatibilism or soft determinism because it acknowledges that all events, including human actions, have causes, but it allows for free actions when the actions are caused by one's choices rather than external forces.
Fatalist view – Whereas the doctrine of Fatalism is very similar to determinism. But it only denies that human beings have the power to change the course of events. It says that “whatever is going to happen is going to happen”. Fatalists mean to say that the future will be of a certain nature regardless of everything. Fatalists argued that “if you are going to be killed ,you will be killed whatever precautions you take.Therefore there is no point in our trying to do anything about it.” The fallacy of the fatalists is quite clear. It is a plain empirical fact that those who neglect to take precautions stand a higher chance of getting killed and those who take precautions stand a higher chance of staying alive. To live at all involves risks. Still the fatalistic conclusion that human beings are impotent to change the course of events is simply a false empirical preposition. In daily life,everyone is perfectly aware of this. People may be fatalistic about far off events, or things they believe cannot be controlled in any way, but they cannot be consistently fatalistic about every event in their lives. When people get hungry they cannot be fatalists any more. They will try their level best to find food. By the fatalist approach it can also be argued that a person should not be punished by law for any crime. They cannot be held responsible for any crime since the crime committed was not in their control. Indeterminist view- They had view just opposite of determinists. They deny that every thing that happens has a cause. The indeterminist is not likely of the view in the area of inorganic nature. The motion of a planet is caused(determined) by a set of prior conditions. So is the path of every projectile and the history of every molecule of oxygen. It is only in the human realm that they wish to present their case. The only area that the universal causality does not hold good is the realm of actions, the things we do. The sole reason why the indeterminists deny the Causal Principle is that they want to make roo m for freedom. They are convinced that human freedom is not possible if they don’t deny the Causal Principle. Indeterminism is important for the question of free will because strict determinism implies just one possible future. Indeterminism means that the future is unpredictable. Indeterminism allows alternative futures and the question becomes how the one actual present is realized from these potential alternatives. Despite David Hume's critical attack on the necessity of causes, many philosophers embrace causality strongly. Some even connect it to the very possibility of logic and reason. Even in a world that contains quantum uncertainty, macroscopic objects are determined to an extraordinary degree. Newton's laws of motion are deterministic enough to send men to the moon and back. Our Cogito model of the Macro Mind is large enough to ignore quantum uncertainty for the purpose of the reasoning will. The neural system is robust enough to insure that mental decisions are reliably transmitted to our limbs. •Objections: oIndeterminism reduces the whole scientific effort to explain nature and human beings to mere probability, and it makes such an effort a waste of time insofar as it does not guarantee that understanding human behavior will allow us to improve it. oIf choices and actions are not determined even by one's personality or character, then a so-called "free" act would be one that occurs spontaneously and unpredictably (even to the person doing it) ; thus no one could justifiably be held responsible for doing an action which not even he/she could have predicted would occur. Pure chance is thus not freedom in any sense that we would ordinarily recognize.
