Of all questions posed by philosophical inquiry, few are as much contested and certainly as much contemplated as are those concerning human agency. At the center of this debate lie two markedly unyielding viewpoints: those presided over by libertarianism and hard determinism. Even though both provide captivating insights into the enigmas of human behavior, they radically diverge when it comes to the crucial question of free will. This essay explores how libertarianism and hard determinism provide strong arguments about human agency, diverging perspectives shedding light upon the intricacies of moral responsibility and governance of societies, ultimately illustrating the conflict between individual autonomy and deterministic forces impacting human behavior and social structures.
What is free will?
Free will thus relates to the independent choices of an individual unconditioned by other forces outside, referring to autonomy and control over one’s action. It signifies that such factors as fate or coercion do not determine men but can decide their course of action. However, other debates continue to examine whether free will can coexist with determinism that bases all events, including human actions, on previous causes.
What is libertarianism?
Libertarianism is a political philosophy derived from the principle that people should have free range in their lives and not happen to face any interferencent institutions. Thus, libertarianism is, at its root, a philosophy of individual liberty. This implies that a person should have the right to choose and pursue his interests as he pleases, provided this does not inflict injury or infringe on another individual’s rights(Susan, 1958). Perhaps one of the more basic tenets of libertarianism is its principle that the government should keep out of economic and personal matters as much as possible. Those adhering to the philosophy feel that the free market, unimpeded by stifling governmental rules, red tape, or bureaucratic oversight, serves best serves the twin goals of optimum resource allocation efficiency and prosperity. They believe in the function and organization of voluntary interactions and exchange, viewing government intervention in economic affairs as thirsty and often sparse.
Libertarians are, on the other hand, ones who uphold that there is a basic occurrence of private property rights for the freedom of the individual. They state that an individual has the right to own, use, and dispose of property however he pleases without government confiscation or intervention. This concerns material things like land and other physical goods and the fruit of one’s labor and intellectual products. At its core, libertarianism is the vision of a society where individuals are free to seek their own goals and desiderata unseized by the heavy hand of government(Susan, 1958). It promises limited government, consensual governance, and personal autonomy as the main ingredients for any recipe for a fair and prosperous society.
Cause of our actions, and how does this make us morally responsible for our actions?
Libertarianism, a political philosophy staunchly wedded to the principles of individual liberty and personal autonomy, postulates that, at its most fundamental level, the origin of our actions lies in our being free to exercise willpower. In the libertarian view, people are regarded as autonomous agents with certain inherent capacities, accounting for their ability to make rational choices independent of external influences like genetics or environmental impacts. This philosophy states that every individual is endowed with the inherent right of self-ownership with a focus on the sovereignty of the body and the mind(Fish, 2021a). Thus, it argues that an individual is liable for his or her actions because they grant them the freedom to choose according to the will in line with values and beliefs. At the center of libertarian thought lies the notion of moral agency that suggests that individuals are responsible for the outcome of one’s choice, good or bad. Thus, such a principle as personal responsibility becomes central to a libertarian ideology.
Additionally, on free will and self-ownership foundational concepts, libertarianism holds steadfast to voluntary interaction among individuals and mutual consent as far-reaching within human relations. Within this libertarian framework, the individual must fulfill agreements, respect property rights, and desist from using force against or defrauding anyone. Libertarians hence advocate a society where individuals voluntarily interact with one another, and the centerpiece of human resources in any such society forms voluntary association based on mutual respect and cooperation. Thus, as libertarians would have it, people would be responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions in managing how they interact with the world. Such an overall understanding of personal accountability promotes a culture of individual empowerment. It supports a society that regards personal freedom and respect for individual rights as occurring at the behest of the state. In essence, libertarianism supports the idea of a morally responsible citizenry even though how individuals act independently has a greater part and just societies.
Hard determinants
Hard determinism is a philosophical view that any event, be it human actions or choices, depends on the causes and conditions which preceded it. This position negates the existence of free will and states that decisions taken by people are influenced by the factors beyond his or her control. Hard determinism, rooted in the belief that the universe is governed by constant laws of cause and effect, renders any notion of real choice or moral responsibility incompatible. Proponents of hard determinism postulate that in essence every human action, even the most spontaneously performed ones, is determined by a causal chain of physical, biological or environmental causes(Fish, 2021b). Such a framework challenges personal agency and accountabilities as traditionally understood, that humans are lead to behavior by deterministic forces and not by autonomous decision-making. While hard determinism is greatly influential in ethics, morality as well as legal theory, it also provokes the debates on the causality dimensions in addition to the limitations inherent in scientific understanding and meaning of human freedom with deterministic universe.
According to hard determinants
Hard determinism holds that human actions are essentially determined by antecedent factors – both practical necessities and reasons for action. These reasons may be motivators to people to act in a particular way, but even motives themselves can be classified as part of the causal nexus. This deterministic worldview doesn’t have an actual sense of free will because every decision is just a result predetermined by these causing events. In this lack of free will, our idea about autonomy and independence gets nullified, reflecting how our choices are perceived. However, despite this illusion of choice, hard determinism, therefore, goes on to argue that people are still morally responsible for their actions. This comes from the deterministic causal chain that theoretically links an individual’s actions to their antecedent causes. Though people do not precisely have free reins over their actions, they arell responsible for those actions since this results from the internal combinafromf circumstances predisposing them to act(Fish, 2021c).
Hard determinism implications are applicable in more than just philosophical debates but seep into practical considerations of ethics and justice. This deterministic view of the world thus calls into question the traditional ideals of moral responsibility and asks questions about the logical sense and effectiveness of punishment, rehabilitation, and social expectation. If people don’t act entirely as they choose, then society must indeed re-tailor its methods regarding accountability and justice. Moreover, hard determinism proposes reflection on the nature of making moral judgments, legal systems, and social norms within a deterministic framework. Although hard determinism poses immense difficulties to traditional human agency and accountability concepts, it provides a logical basis that emphasizes the interconnectivity of individuals with their environment and past encounters(Fish, 2021d). Urging us to reconsider the foundation of our ethical and legal systems in hard determinism promotes a much more profound insight into the complicatedness of human behavior in a deterministic domain.
Which is better between the two
When considering the debate between libertarianism and hard determinism, my inclination leans towards libertarianism. While both views offer compelling arguments, libertarianism resonates with me because it emphasizes individual agency and the potential for genuine free will. That human beings can intend their choice to act in a particular way despite the cause of determinism is somehow more in line with my common sense about personal autonomy and responsibility. One of the reasons I find libertarianism more compelling is that it seems to take the knot-like, twisty, chicanerous nature of the doings of genuine humans seriously. While hard determinism posits into every action to be predetermined by antecedent causes, which includes unconscious determination, libertarianism recognizes decision-making to be a multifaceted activity that includes random events and genuine choice(Frankfurt, 1969). This view seems more attuned to the rich tapestry of human experiences that yield inherent variability in individual responses irrespective of having faced similar circumstances.
In addition, libertarianism articulates a more optimistic outlook for moral responsibility and how meaningful ethical deliberation can be. This view holds the presence of free will that in turn allows a genuine moral agency where people mold their characters diligently and help develop an ethical society. On the other, the deterministic framework of hard determinism raises thorny questions about the nature of culpability and accountability that may well undercut the very foundations of moral judgment and legal justice(Frankfurt, 1969). Both views are surely very persuasive and convincing philosophically, yet a libertarian position definitely seems to be more relevant in my case with the changed notions of autonomy, unpredictability, and even moral responsibility.
In conclusion, Within the philosophical realm of discourse, the disputation between libertarianism and hard determinism retains its captivation of thinkers and scholars. From these diverging perspectives, we struggle with questions of the nature of human agency, the boundaries of free will, and the core of moral accountability. Where hard determinism poses a deterministic framework whose seed of challenge to traditional notions of autonomy is apparent, the libertarian view presents an optimistic perspective that such individual desires or preferences can still transform into the basis for any form of moral agency. Ultimately, this variation in perspective serves to enrich our understanding of human behavior and the nuanced dance between individual volition and outward forces upon it.
Work Cited
Fish, Z. (2021, January 12). Video 1 of 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/499515460/279c04c10a
Fish, Z. (2021b, January 12). Video 2 of 4: Free Will and moral responsibility. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/499515419/6a68c11dae
Fish, Z. (2021c, January 12). Video 3 of 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/499515384/60a22c15a6
Fish, Z. (2021d, January 12). Video 4 of 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/499516618/d701da36a9
Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy.
Susan, L. (1958). Philosophy and the Physicists. Philosophy and the Physicists, 51–52
write