Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility

1
Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility

• Traditional threats to free will Fatalism
  (every event was meant). Predestination (every
  event is willed by God). Divine foreknowledge
  (every event is eternally known by God).
• Determinism Every event is caused by a sequence
  of antecedent events.

2
Does determinism make free will an illusion?

• Libertarianism We are free, determinism is
  false.
• Hard determinism Free will is an illusion,
  our behavior is determined by genes and
  environment.

• Compatibilism (soft determinism) Our behavior
  is causally determined but we are responsible for
  what we do. Our capacity to restrain present
  impulse to avoid predictable harm does not depend
  on escaping causal determination.

3
Obstacles to Incompatibilism

• Libertarianism (incompatibilist indeterminism)
  Introduces a mysterious sort of agency that
  transcends physical laws. Implies that there can
  be no science of human behavior. Dualism (the
  belief that the self is immaterial) is no longer
  a viable position (no explanatory power,
  inconsistent with evolutionary theory,.)
• Hard determinism (incompatibilist determinism)
  By regarding belief in free will as illusory,
  hard determinism eliminates moral responsibility
  and makes deliberation futile. But, the ability
  to deliberate is an evolutionary advantage, not
  an illusion.

4
The Evolution of Agency

• The human brain is the product of six million
  years of evolution. The complexity of our brains
  provides us with the unique capacity for
  language. Linguistic ability enables us to
  anticipate future events and to deliberate about
  how to realize or avoid possible outcomes.

• A rational agent is a utility maximizer. A UM
  deliberates about alternative outcomes, assigns
  an expected utility to each, and then attempts to
  realize the outcome with the highest expected
  utility. A UMs actions are caused and free.

5
Compatibilist Deliberation

• Free action An uncompelled action that an agent
  chooses to perform as the result of a process of
  rational deliberation. Free choices are caused
  by a process of deliberation.
• Here I stand, I can do no other. Luther

6
Religious Epistemology

• Religious Rationalism The existence of God can
  be proven. Unbelief is irrational. Anselm,
  Aquinas, Paley.

Forget faith, brothers, Ive got logic.
7
Belief when the evidence is ambiguous.

• Fideism Objective evidence for Gods existence
  is neither possible nor desirable it must be
  accepted on faith. Kierkegaard.

• Voluntarism The existence of God cannot be
  proven or disproven, but religious belief is
  rational if our passions lead us to prefer the
  religious hypothesis. (James)

8
Ambiguity and religious belief

• Religious empiricism The existence of God
  cannot be demonstrated, but reports of religious
  experience provide evidence for the existence of
  an Ultimate Reality.

• Naturalism Naturalistic explanations (of the
  origin of the universe and human life, and of
  claims to religious experience) are superior to
  supernaturalistic explanations. Hence, religious
  belief is probably illusory.

9
The Five Ways of Aquinas

• First Way change, motion.
• P1. Everything moved is moved by something
  outside itself.
• P2. Infinite sequence of movers- impossible.
• \ A first, unmoved mover must exist God.

This argument is so moving!
10
2nd way of Thomas

• Whatever exists has a cause.
• Nothing can be the cause of itself.
• Causes cant go back infinitely, for, if there
  was no first cause, there could be no subsequent
  causes.
• \ There must be a first uncaused cause of the
  causal series. God.

11
Where true charity is found, God himself is
there. Thomas Aquinas

• 3rd way Many things are contingent.
• If everything is contingent, then once there was
  nothing.
• \ Something must be necessary God

• 4th Way Some things are sort of wise and not
  too pretty. Something is sort of wise by sharing
  in perfect wisdom. \ A supreme being exists.
  God

12
Teleology (5th way)

• Nature operates according to regular patterns
  that allow life to flourish. It is no accident
  that the goal of flourishing is everywhere
  attained. An unconscious thing attains its goal
  only when guided by intelligence.

• \ An intelligent force guides the universe.
  God.
• Paley Find a watch, infer a watchmaker.
• The human eye is more complex than a Rolex.
• \ It is highly probable that a divine eye
  designer exists.

13
Disteleology

• Natural selection and genetic mutation explain
  the slow evolution of the eye.
• The big bang hypothesis explains the origin of
  our universe.

Are you sure the fossil record will confirm this?
14
Is the universe described by theism the universe
we inhabit?

• Humes critique
• The design argument rests on a weak analogy. The
  universe is unlike any product designed by
  humans. Living things differ from artifacts in
  relevant ways (begotten not made organic etc.)

• We have no past experience of the origins of a
  universe.
• The design argument fails to show that the
  designer is all powerful, morally good, or one
  god rather than a divine committee.
• Wouldnt an all powerful creator display better
  craftsmanship?

15
J.S. Mills Natural Theology

• The empirical evidence suggests that our universe
  was probably designed by a finite god who is
  benevolent but not clearly just. A god who
  allows evil, disease, ignorance, and suffering to
  attain some greater good is not omnipotent. If
  the creator is morally good that Being intended
  nature as a scheme to be amended, not imitated,
  by man. We must assist god in ameliorating the
  human condition.

16
The Problem of Evil

• God is all powerful.
• God is perfectly good.
• Evil exists. Inconsistent statements
• If God is all powerful, he could eliminate evil
  and suffering. If God is perfectly good he would
  wish to eliminate evil and suffering.

17
Theodicies

• Deny omnipotence. Kushner When Bad Things Happen
  to Good People.
• Deny the reality of evil Christian Science.
• Cosmic harmony.

• Free will requires evil (natural evil too? how
  much is required?)
• Soul making A pilgrims long journey towards
  moral perfection

If evil is just an illusion then the illusion
that evil exists is an evil
18
Objections

• Denying omnipotence solves the logical problem
  but leaves the question of Gods apparent absence
  unresolved.
• Claiming that evil is illusion creates a new
  evil, viz., the widespread delusion that evil
  exists.

• The extent of evil and suffering leaves one
  wondering, does the harmonious end justify the
  means?
• Free will helps with moral evil but doesnt
  address natural evils.
• How much suffering is required to shape a soul?

19
Pascals Wager
Belief Options
Believe Disbelieve
Existential Eternal Bliss! Outcomes Eternal Hell!!!
Wasted Sundays. Had less fun. Lived without illusion.
Possible Realities God is
No God
20
The Cosmic Casino

• God is, or he is not. But to which side shall we
  incline? Reason cannot decide it at all. There
  is an infinite chaos that separates us. A game
  is being played, at the extremity of this
  infinite distance, in which heads or tails must
  come up. Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in
  taking heads that God exists. If you gain, you
  gain all if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager,
  then, That He is, without hesitation. (Blaise
  Pascal)

21
The Will To Believe

• I. Our epistemic situation-- theoretic
  ambiguity (evidence for and against Gods
  existence is inconclusive).
• II. Our existential situation
• A. Importance- it matters greatly to us. A
  momentous hypothesis
• B. Inevitability of choosing forced hypothesis.

22
William James concludes

• When we are forced to decide on a momentous issue
  with inconclusive evidence, it is rational to
  follow our instincts and desires, to embrace the
  religious hypothesis.

• John Hick wonders Is the will to believe a
  license for wishful thinking?
• Can the argument support a right to believe if
  religious experience confirms that an Ultimate
  Reality exists?

23
Midterm Review

• Pt I. Matching. Match the philosopher with his
  quote Thales, Democritus, Parmenides, Heraclitus
  (wk 1),Socrates (wk 2), Aquinas, (wk 3) Hume,
  Mill, Pascal, James (wk 4)
• Part II. Short answer.
• 1.Objection to piety definition (Euthyphro)(2)
• 2. The Socratic Mission (2)
• 3.James- skeptical balance (4)
• 4.Religious ambiguity(3,4)

• Pt. III. Essay (a) teleological (design)
  argument or (b) problem of evil.
• Part IV. Multiple choice
• 1. Definitions- libertarianism, hard
  determinism, compatibilism. 2. Problem of evil
  as objection to argument for Gods existence. 3.
  Why Plato opposes prayer/sacrifice piety. 4.
  Definition of rational agent. 5. Why Mill
  thinks God is finite. 6. Heraclitus main point.
  7. Famous Socrates quote.