are determinism and moral responsibility mutually exclusive?
tonight our philosophy club was to discuss Harry Frankfurt's essay:
"Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility"
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatFrankfurt.htm
the article deals with the classic metaphysical argument of freedom v. determinism by considering the following:
if the world is deterministic; that is, if effect follows cause ad infinitum, then can a person be said to be morally responsible for his actions?
put more simply: are determinism and moral responsibility mutually exclusive?
i welcome your thoughts ... i will certainly be adding my two cents very soon ...
"Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility"
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatFrankfurt.htm
the article deals with the classic metaphysical argument of freedom v. determinism by considering the following:
if the world is deterministic; that is, if effect follows cause ad infinitum, then can a person be said to be morally responsible for his actions?
put more simply: are determinism and moral responsibility mutually exclusive?
i welcome your thoughts ... i will certainly be adding my two cents very soon ...
posited by hereis nowhy at 20:28
3 Comments:
well, i haven't read Frankfurt's essay on the topic, but i can provide a viewpoint which has its origins in my physics background.
The deterministic view is essentially a fallout of classical Newtonian mechanics, the idea that every event in nature directly influences the immediate next; that is, if we know certain parameters such as energy, position and momentum, it is theoretically possible to calculate these parameters at ANY point in the future - indicating that man's actions in between really do not make a difference.
This is also the basis of Einstein's idea of God, as the guy who sets the initial conditions - the parameters at time t=0, and then sits back and watches events unfold.
The emergence of quantum mechanics however, throws an entirely different light on the issue. This is because according to QM, it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle exactly at any point in time( the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle ). This means that there is always an uncertainty, that is, we cannot predict what event will occur in the future, we can only estimate its PROBABILITY and say that this event is likely to occur.
This aspect of chance,is what is often interpreted as the freedom of man and the idea that his actions have a direct impact on the possibilty of a particular event happening.
i am also intrigued by Quantum Physics and what it’s discoveries imply about our reality. melon collie is correct that scientists can most easily explain the activity of sub-atomic particles using matrices of probability; for any given experiment it is not possible to predict the exact outcome, but after a while you see that the outcomes are not random, but follow a specific pattern of distribution.
now, what this means for the metaphysical argument of freedom v. determinism is still unclear. melon collie is saying that the fact that there is uncertainty implies that there is freedom inherent in the decision. i’m not so sure that quantum physics could be used to prove either a free or a deterministic reality.
meet Max. Max has a decision to make. quantum physics can best describe Max’s range of options using a probability matrix. at the end of the day, however, Max will only make ONE decision. quantum physicists seem to be saying that the decision will be completely random, but will fall within the matrix of probabilities. i have trouble believing that this choice is random. if it is, then one might easily conclude that life is meaningless! so let’s put that aside and assume that the choice is not random. if it’s not random, then was the choice pre-determined or chosen out of free will? we are back to the original question! it doesn’t seem that quantum physics can help us with this metaphysical question, but it does tell us one thing; if we do live in a “free” reality, this freedom seems to be constrained by a pattern of distribution. if an outcome has a zero percent probability to occur, no amount of “freedom” will make it occur!
(it is also necessary to remember that quantum physics, to date at least, is only applicable at the sub-atomic level. when scientists view the world at a more macro level, Einstein’s theory of relativity still reigns supreme. perhaps String Theory will be able to collapse this divide and give us further insight into our reality ...)
i agree with emmanual on at least this: a BELIEF in freedom is the only way that humans will strive for a higher level of freedom ... and the only way that they will fight for a higher level of humanity!
i dub my fence-sitting "psuedo-freedom" ... the majority of us instinctively believe in freedom, and that's the only way the world will (continue to?) evolve ...
Post a Comment
<< Home