Since the beginning of time or rather rational thinking, people have contemplated their purpose, reasons for existing and the self. There are those who believe that people have a soul, which expresses itself in a way of emotions and is what guides our lives. But another view is competing—the physical, material frames that are placed upon us, stripping of any freedom and choice. Philosophy is a science that has been researching these questions for the longest time. The concepts of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism have emerged as a possible explanation to human attitudes and behaviors.
The most basic theory of human attitude and behavior is determinism. It denies the existence of free choice, confining people’s lives into a predetermined set of actions. Determinism is a very physical and material view that bases itself on the circumstances and cause and effect (Butts 10). Its main points state that people are defined by the genes that they have received from the previous generations and by the environmental factors. There is no way to change the genetic material, so it is agreeable that this part of the equation is determined, even though in the current age there is genetic experimentation with the information stored in the DNA. And the second point—environmental surroundings, also completely negates the free choices in life. But planet Earth is a large enough place for a person to be able to change the setting they reside in. There is no denying that people are limited by the ability to move around due to their physical state, connection to others and their age, since as a child it is hard to choose a place to grow up in. Still a person’s will and determination will not stop anyone who has physical troubles, as they can find a way to accomplish their wants. Today’s world of technology made communication over great distances very easy, so anyone can escape into any part of the world and keep contact with the loved ones. But a limit is set when a child is growing up; they have no choice to live wherever they want. This factor eventually disappears, once a person grows up. So for the physical determination the only limitation are the material boundaries of the planet, without considering the possibility of building a space craft to travel to other worlds. It would be safe to assume that a person’s environment is limited by the geography of the planet and the amount of possible places to visit, which is enormous but is nonetheless limited. What is not framed is the person’s individual choice of what area to pick. Depending on their inner want, they could go to the north or the tropics. Considering all of this it is presumed that the emotional desire is also determined by the previous genetic information and the up-bringing—nurture. So the question is what exactly determines this inner want to choose the environment? A simple cluster of information absorbed from the media, parents, peers and other social mediums, plus the beneficial and not so much DNA coding, could not possibly create an individuality, as genes are a simple and emotionless gathering of facts and ideas. The way a person interprets and uses these ideas and information is exactly what makes each one unique. Compared to other theories determinism seems to be on the right track, having some useful explanations and ideas but it lacks the grand picture of emotion and originality.
Another theory is compatibilism, which is much closer to the truth. It is defined by both deterministic qualities and free will. The thinkers of this direction acknowledge that some things in the world are determined (Mele 103). As mentioned previously they are the boundaries of the planet, human physical abilities and the physical laws of nature. But in reality there is no real proof that after meditating for 50 years or more or less, a person could not learn how to fly. To make an argument easy, it is assumed that it is impossible and thus this limitation does exist. What makes this theory stronger is that it accepts the possibility of free will existence. Free will is defined as the ability of a person to make a choice not influenced and forced by anyone from the outside world (Pereboom 7). Ability to choose encompasses human soul and emotions. It is an unquantifiable entity that is very hard to pinpoint. The limitation of language and concepts creates a problem for compatibilism in the precise definition of free will. From one perspective nothing in this world is made by choice. People are born without really wanting it, someone else decides for them. Once they are born, they have a structure of society and family to follow. As a child’s mind is developing and cannot properly judge what is happening around, from lack of experience and knowledge, parents or guardians are the ones who have to take the young person through life’s steps. For children of young age free will can be seen when they play—the great use of imagination based on very little sensual information from the world. For example, at age 5 a child would not be able to rationalize why the world is the way it is, the little human being’s free will and choice are limited by their age. They cannot go out late and drink alcohol, but it would be wrong to consider this as the absence of freedom. It is clear that a person receives this “free will”, once they start to consciously analyze the world around them and themselves. Considering the facts mentioned above it would be safe to say that the “democratic” nature of compatibilism is moving in the right direction.
A theory which is based purely on freedom of choice is called libertarianism. It is obvious that it takes the said freedom to the extreme (Brennan1). Just as determinism is basing everything on physics and complete absence of choice, libertarianism advocates that people are completely free agents and have the choice to do anything they want (Duncan and Tibor 3). This could theoretically be true if a person lived on a privately owned island, being the king and making own rules and laws. But even then they would be unable, for example, to build weapons and send rockets to bomb other countries. So in reality, a person living in this world has no absolute freedom, as people are social beings, living in communities interdependent in the functions of society. The fact that there are moral rules, such as not hurting another human being without a justifiable reason, already creates a determined boundary. From where specifically this innate “good” comes from, no one can say, it is called a part of “human nature”. What’s definite is that humans did not create the universe, physical laws and the ethical principles that a properly and responsibly behaving human being abides by. As this proves, human nature cannot be chosen because we are born into it. This already negates the theory of libertarianism. But the whole question of freedom is very much displaced from the argument at hand. If the air we breathe and the kinds of animals we hunt are considered a limitation of free choice and will, then people are simply marionettes, which is false. Even the fact that there is a limit in the number of possibilities allowed by the physical and moral laws, does not take away the true freedom since everyone has a unique way of searching for those possibilities. A very obvious and simple example of free will can be seen when analyzing music, arts and imagination in general. There is an unlimited amount of combinations that one can create. In music there is an everlasting ordering of notes and rhythms, this is proved by the enormous number of musicians in the world today. Painting, dancing, singing and building are all unlimited in the distribution of their elements. Compatibilism is definitely the theory that comes closest to the absolute truth. Yes, humans are limited in certain things, concrete and immovable, but the specific way in which every individual chooses to do or think is unique and free. In reality free will does not exist, because the definition of freedom is wrong from the very beginning. The closest anything comes to “free will” is a person’s emotional predisposition towards something. If a person was born with genes that favored kindness and then during the upbringing kindness was reinforced by the environment, the person becomes determined or defined by this kindness. The fact that they will not be able to hurt anyone innocent purposefully for their whole life, does not take away their free choice. Anyone is free to want anything. It depends on the person, how far they want to go with this want. In basic terms everything can be framed into the predetermined cause and effect world, even such things as kindness, respect and love. But the fact that human beings are given the ability to think about their existence, consciously speculate about the good and evil, moral or not so much, self evolvement and justice, proves that we are masters of our destiny and are free to choose any path of desire but there is no guarantee that these choices will be left without consequences, affecting and determining the future of people around or of that person in particular.
Philosophy is considered to be one of the oldest sciences in the world. When humans did not have the tools and mechanisms to study nature, they had the greatest mechanism of all—their brain. People have long been trying to find answers to the questions of life, reasons for existing, free will, soul and the right choice. It is true that society defines our behavior and land limits our dwelling places but there is no limit to the imagination and exploration of unreachable galaxies and so, this would be enough to say that human beings are free, in their mind, even if they are bound by shackles and walls.
References
Brennan, Jason. Libertarianis: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, United States: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Butts, Robert. A primer on Determinism. Massachusets, United States: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986. Print.
Duncan, Craig, and M. Tibor. Libertarianism: For and against. Maryland, United States: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.
Mele, Alfred. Free Will and Luck. New York, United States: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Pereboom, Derk. Free Will. Indianapolis, United States: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009. Print.