Determinism is rejected by Libertarianism. Libertarians contend that if all actions are the result of causes (and those causes of other causes, and so on), then no actions are ones for which anyone can be held morally responsible.
The robber sticking up a bank today does so as a result of a series of causes that can be traced back prior to his birth, and also the nutritional quality of food he ate as a child. In turn, these causes flow from the kind of education his parents received, their lack of parented love, and other such elements. How can the robber justifiably be held responsible or blamed for the behavior? He could not help the way his parents treated him not the manner in which they were educated. For the Libertarian, to be considered responsible for an act is to be free to have acted otherwise; but such freedom apparently cannot exist when all human actions are predictable outcome of various causes.
In “A Brief Defense of Free will,” Tibor Machan denies that all actions are the result of factors beyond our control. Both introspective evidence and ordinary explanations of our conduct support the claims that sometimes we freely cause our own actions. The frequently offered criticism that free will is incompatible with modern science is mistaken, he claims, because science cannot prove that the laws of physics must govern all actions. It is possible that beings could evolve that display initiative and cause their own actions. Finally, determinist must control some paradoxical consequences; for example, any assessment of the theory would be suspect because the assessment might be the product of a cause that is irrelevant to the truth of the theory.(ibid)
Hard determinism, a major version of determinism, denies, as does libertarianism, that moral responsibility is compatible with universal causation.
In his article “The Delusion of Free Will,” Robert Blatchford presents the hard determinants’ position. He argues both that there is no free will and that the traditional notions of responsibility are unacceptable. All human actions are ruled by heredity and environment; and, since we are not responsible for either of these, all blame is unjust.
He argues that if the will were free, prediction on the basis of environment and training would be impossible. But since in many cases we can make very reliable predictions about behavior, free will cannot be true. He also doubts that most supporters of free will really believe in it. If they did, would they try hard to secure a good environment for their children? The concern for the child’s environment indicates a belief that it is of great importance in molding the person.
Some philosophers do not accept the hard libertarian claim that determinism erases moral responsibility. They, defending Soft determinism, maintain that people can be morally responsible even though their behavior is determined. They frequently argue that a person’s behavior is free if it is not the result of any compulsion. If you go to the movies because you wish to and are not pressured or coerced by any one to do so, then your action ordinarily would be called a free one. Of course, your wish is the result of numerous causes swarming in your background. Thus, an action that is determined and yet called “free.”
The soundness of this soft determinist argument depends on the cogency of the analysis of the meaning of “Free Will”. W.T. Stace defends soft determinism in his article” The problem of Free Will.” He writes,” The problem of free will, and its solution, I shall maintain, is verbal in exactly the same way. The problem has been created by the fact that learned men, especially philosophers, have assumed an incorrect definition of freewill, and then finding that there is nothing in the world which answers to the definition, have denied its existence.
As for logic is concerned, their conclusion is just as absurd as that of the man who denies the existence of men (on the basis of the definition that man is a certain sort of five-legged animal).The only difference is that the mistake in the latter case is obvious and crude, while the mistake which the deniers of free will have made is rather subtle and difficult”. He further writes,” Of course there is a sense in which one can define a word arbitrarily in any way one pleases.
But a definition may nevertheless be called correct or incorrect. It is correct if it accords with a common usage of the world defined. It is incorrect if does not. And if you give an incorrect definition, absurd and untrue results are likely to follow. For instance, there is nothing to prevent you from arbitrarily defining a man as a five-legged animal, but this is incorrect in the sense that it does not accord with ordinary meaning of the world. Also it has the absurd result of leading to a denial of the existence of men. This shows that common usage is the criterion for deciding whether a definition is correct or not.”
However, John Hospers, in his article,” What Means This Freedom” doubts about the views of soft determinists. Hospers describes the usual criteria for assessing moral responsibility, but he doubts that they are useful in dealing with the philosophical concern about the issue. That concern is that our character, which gives rise to our actions, is formed by a variety of hereditary and early childhood influences beyond our control. Given this view of our character, it appears that the way we act, for good or ill, is merely a matter of luck.
Richard Taylor distinguishes between Fatalism and Determinism in this way,” Determinism, it will be recalled, is the theory that events are rendered unavoidable by their causes…according to the fatalist, certain events are going to happen no matter what, or in other words, regardless of causes.”
A fatalist, then, is someone who believes that whatever happens is and always was unavoidable. He thinks it is not up to him what will happen a thousand years hence, next year, tomorrow, or the very next moment. Hence, he might try sometimes to read signs and portents, as meteorologists and astrologers do, or to contemplate the effects upon him of the various things that might, for all he knows, be fated to occur. A fatalist thus thinks of future in the way we all think of the past, for everyone is a fatalist as he looks back on things.
The problem arising from the conflicting views between determinists and libertarians involves the proper treatment of criminals. Interestingly, what we are discussing in the twenty first century about freedom of will and fatalism had already been discussed more than two millennia ago in the epic period. In the Anushasanaparva of the epic Mahabharata, there is a discussion relating to the potency of human efforts initiated, on the death of a boy who dies by snakebite, to know the real cause of his premature death. The dialogue takes place between Death, Gautami (the mother of the boy) Fate or Kala, the Fowler and the Serpent.
The Fowler named Arjunaka blames the Serpent for this death and hence wants to kill the Serpent. Gautami thinks that fate is its cause, while the Fowler thinks the serpent as the immediate cause. Gautami requests him,” Do thou O Arjunaka of little understanding, release this Serpent. It does not deserve death at your hands. Who is so foolish as to disregard the inevitable lot that awaits him and burdening himself with such folly sinks into sin?”
The Serpent defends himself on the ground that he is bound by Death. He is an instrument. He says, “O foolish Arjunaka, what fault is there of mine? I have no will of my own, and am not independent. Death sent me on this errand. By his direction I have bitten this child, and not out of any anger or choice on my part. Therefore, if there be any sin in this, O Fowler, the sin is his.
However, the Fowler is not convinced and holds the Serpent as instrumental cause and thinks it responsible for the death. Accepting Serpent as an efficient cause, he argues,” As in the making of an earthen vessel the potter’s wheel and rod and other things are all regarded as causes, so art thou, O serpent. (a cause in the production of this effect).
The Fowler further raises a very important issue by putting a question: If whatever is done is predetermined and fixed then what is the use of ethics at all? No work is good or bad in itself. He argues further by stating that if a doer is not at all at fault for doing a bad work according to you, then why are the thieves and murders killed or punished for their crimes by the king? They should not be blamed for their crimes.
Here the point at issue is: whether man is free or not in his actions. If he is not free, then to pass moral judgments regarding his actions is meaningless, useless and thus superfluous. If the proposition that man is not free-is true, then the whole science of ethics is untrue. Moral judgment presupposes freedom of will. Non-voluntary actions are not the subject matter of ethics.
The controversy still goes ahead. Death having blamed for the death by the Serpent defends himself, ” Guided by Fate (Kala), I, O serpent, sent thee on this errand, and neither art thou nor am I the cause of this child’s death…. The whole universe, O Serpent, is imbued with this same influence of Fate. Knowing this, why dost thou, O Serpent, consider me to be guilty? If any fault is attached to me in this, thou also wouldst be to blame”
Being blamed for the death of the boy, Fate himself appears to defend his case by blaming the previous actions of the boy itself responsible and none else. He defends, “Neither Death nor this Serpent, nor am I, O, Flower, guilty of the death of any creature. We are merely the immediate, exciting causes of the event. O. Arjunaka, the action of this child formed the exciting cause of our action in this matter….He has met with death as the result of his action in the past. Therefore, neither art thou, nor am I , nor Death, nor the Serpent, nor the old Brahmin lady , is the cause of this child’s death. He himself is the cause here”.
This intellectual discourse implies: first, Fate is nothing but the past deeds of the individual that influence his future and present states of affairs. In other words, fate is the name of stored results of human deeds in the past, which are responsible for our present actions. Secondly, the law of action or karma is the law of causation in the field of morality. Thirdly, human beings are responsible for their actions. Men are responsible only when they are free to act. So, responsibility implies freedom of will.
E.W.Hopkins regards Fate as the implication of karma doctrine. The notion of fate seems to depend on the concept of law of karma which is working everywhere. It simply means that all actions, good or bad, produce necessarily their proper consequences in the life of the individual. It also stands for an action to generate some sort of power or energy to bear consequences. The consequences of the deeds, which are stored to be reaped by the performer, start to give result are called destiny. The power regarded as fate is nothing but the power of our deeds done in previous existence.
The division of karma has been lucidly explained by S. C. Chaterjee and D. M. Datta in these words,” According to one principle, karmas can be broadly divided into (a) those which have not yet begun to bear fruits (anarabdha karma), and those which are already begun to bear fruits like the present body and its accompaniments (arabdha or prarabdha karma).
Anarabdha Karma again is divided into two classes, according as it is accumulated from the past lives(Praktana or sanchita karma) or is being gathered in this life( Kriyamana or Sanchiyamana Karma). So, the accumulated consequences of previous deeds are called stored or sanchita, and that portion of which has been to affect and influence our present life also shapes it is regarded as Prarabdha, which is another name for destiny or fate. Thus our past actions influence our present life in the form of destiny. So, fate and human efforts are not entirely different things but the same deeds (Karma), performed earlier in relation to time, but now different in shape.
The analysis of the concept of law of Karma, which asserts the working of the law of causation in the field of morality, can explain human freedom in performance. It asserts that no one can disown his own deeds if once they are committed. But at the same time it also asserts that every one is free to counteract the effects of those actions by doing other good deeds. So, man is free so long as he has freedom of will to choose different actions and is bound by those effects which are accumulated from his past performances, which we call destiny.
Deeds result in pleasure and pain, success or failure, which were either performed in the past life or being performed in the present life. Every one of us, who faces both favorable and unfavorable results, is himself responsible for such conditions and not his destiny. It is due to his free choice that he made in his previous life. His choice is determined by his education, character and so on. Even these things are not determined by any supernatural entity but by his previous deeds. Thus man himself influences his present and future by receiving the due that is the justified fruit of his action.
The distinction between that part which is beyond control in human nature and that, which can be controlled and molded by our motives and intentions, provides ground for judging whether man is free or not in his action. There are certain factors in our life that are guided by forces beyond our control. As for instance, we have no control over the time, place and condition of life where we are born. But we have control over our actions, thoughts and sentiments. In spite of all limitations we are free to make our choice. We have freedom of will.
Dr. Radhakrishnan compares human freedom of will with the freedom of the players of the bridge game. He holds, “ Life is like a game of bridge. We did not invent the game or design the cards. We did not frame the rules and we cannot control the dealings. The cards are dealt out to us whether they be good or bad. To that extent, determinism rules. But we can play the game well or play it badly. A skillful player may have poor hand and yet win the game. A bad player may have a good hand and yet make a mess of it.”
He further writes,” Our life is a mixture of necessity and freedom, chance and choice. By exercising our choice properly, we can control steadily all the elements and eliminate altogether the determinism of nature.”
Conclusions:
Philosophy, being the oldest rational achievement of mankind, has originated differently in the west and the east. This is the reason; it has different destinations. Philosophy made room for science in the west leading to its material development and scientific flight. On the contrary, eastern philosophy moving round self and searching for human salvation not from poverty but from misery and the circle of birth and rebirth, the idea it has created in order to explain suffering of life.
Modern eastern philosophy, therefore, faces a challenging task of bridging the gap between centuries-old tradition and the present day world’s ’Scientific facts’ and ‘the empirical attitude’. To meet the challenge, modern thinkers assert their respect for the value of the tradition, on the one hand, and hold them not antagonistic to the scientific temper of the modern world, on the other.
Therefore, their philosophic thoughts become interpretive rather than creative. In this connection, accepting that every philosophy bears the mark of its origin, B.K.Lal, writes,” That is why British Philosophy is generally empirical and American Philosophy is rooted in realistic and pragmatic considerations. French Philosophy is rationalistic, while German Philosophy is pre-dominantly speculative. In that vein, Indian Philosophy can be described as meditative.”
Lal has held philosophy as meditative because the word ‘meditative’ has wider sphere than the word ’Spiritual’, which lays emphasis on values that are spiritual and otherworldly. However, the word ‘meditative ‘is more comprehensive as the Indian thinkers have come to discover certain holy powers of Nature within man that has also a capacity to transcend him. Through the ‘meditative speculation’, he grasps some notion, which becomes his article of belief. Since truth is are revealed to the thinker in his intuitive insight, rational demonstrations, arguments, and criticisms become secondary to him.
Among the basic characteristics of contemporary philosophy, the tragic sense of life is also found to be the basis of Eastern Philosophy. Since life is full of suffering, the aim of philosophy as well as of religion is to get freedom from suffering which can be attained through different approaches. It, thus, attaches meaning and purpose to life paving the way for the process of spiritual growth, through which, human life gets a dignity and a human significance.
Some thinkers like Tagore and Radhakrishnan have existential consideration to life as they analyze the existential conditions of man and speak of the life of care and anguish-of fear and boredom-and assert that life means living in the midst of and in spite of them. (Lal, ibid, p-xiii).To them, philosophy is concerned with the existent individual living in the midst of his life-situations, but the ultimate ideal that it recommends is the redemption of both, the individual and the race. They thus accept the reality of the world and also of the bodily aspect of man.
As a matter of fact, these are the issues, which ancient seers encountered with while explaining the live and world as a whole and these issues have also been boggling the minds of contemporary thinkers. Ancient thinkers held these notions as some things that are beyond the grasp of ordinary experience and intellect, as they seemed to be abstract and unrealistic.
On the contrary, contemporary thinkers keep on relating them to actual life and experience. For example, the state of dreamless sleep, as often quoted by the Vedantists, is not actually a state of experience, but a state of ‘experience-lessness’. Acts of pure joy like music, aesthetic contemplation, rational insight, and ethical behavior can have flashes of immortality. Like salvation, Sarvamukti and Divine Life are the different names given to the goal of life. To some, the world as a reality. They also assert the dignity of humanness. They all believe in the ideal of life that can be reached only by transcending the finite world, and yet, they all are one in asserting that being in the world or being human is not a misfortune as held by early thinkers.
Like contemporary Indian thinkers, Nepalese thinkers too have not succeeded in providing rational interpretation of life and the world. In modern Nepalese literature, there is a galaxy of writers, poets and novelists who have expressed their philosophical temperament in their writings. There is a distinct tendency to reconcile spirituality with scientific approach. A few of them can be cited here like, Parijata, Balkrishna Sama, Lekhanath Paudel, Bisheshwara Prasad Koirala etc.
A tragic sense of life is clearly noticed in the novel ’Sirishako Phool’ written by Parijata. Sometimes she seems to follow the line of nihilism and sometime of existentialism through the expressions of the hero, Suyogbir who feels that his life is meaningless and absurd. But such expressions of his are the result of his frustration in his love-life as he fails to get favorable response from his beloved.
The great poet Lekhanath Paudel compares human life with that of a fruit-tree which is useful and meaningful’ in his epic ’Tarun Tapasi’. He holds the act of helping others has spiritual merit and inflicting pains to them as sin. He thus believes in traditional spiritualism. Balkrishna sama, a great dramatist, has tried to reconcile science with his traditional concept in his book ’Niyamit Aakasmiktaa’.
To him, there is regular accidentialism or chance in the evolution of the world and its objects. Bisheshwara Prasad Koirala, as an advocate of reconciliation between ancient spiritual culture and modern scientific approach, shows his psycho-cultural temper in interpreting the myths in his novels like ’Sumnima’ and ’Modiain’.
Thus, theoretically, philosophy seems lose its significance and fails to solve its problems created by it. Though its scope has broadened in recent years as the cream of highest critical thinking of different subjects of science, arts and humanities, it seems to have some meaning with regard to selecting a way of life. Critical issues of philosophy are related to different aspects of human life leaving impact on society. If every individual leads his life reasonably (philosophically), his conduct will bring peace and harmony in society and our problems will be reduced considerably making society worth living in. (Concluded)
(This is the second and concluding part of two-part article. This article is an edited version of the key-note address made by the author at a seminar organized by Nepal Academy in collaboration with Malta University on December 19, 2016. The key-note address was later included as a chapter of a book on philosophy written by the author.)
