The crucial question would be if everything that happens in the universe is the result of causal necessary relations like the laws of physics, then how one can have a “free” will in the sense of a decision. Hume states there’s a Compatibilism between human free will and determinism by attempting to explain the reason why humankind cannot escape the chain of cause and effect even explained by this idea of determinism understood as Law of nature by the physics; explained by Hume as “matter that is actuated by a necessary force, and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause.” (54p) On the other hand, the free will, which at first gaze seems the power people have to choose and make their own decisions, it’s for Hume “a power of acting or no acting according to the determination of the will, that our free will would be the ability to act according to our desires”… He would explain like so: “Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity… ; these passions, mixed in various degrees , and distributed through society, have been…the source of all the actions and enterprises, that have been observed in mankind. “ (55p) Based on this, Hume will later say that Liberty and necessity not only are the two compatible, but Liberty requires Necessity. Well, there’s his Compatibilism. But the question keeps still in effect to be solved. How we can reconcile, on one hand, that view of that all events are causally determinated, and the on the other hand, the view that in any given situation, a person could have behaved otherwise in free will.
Everyone always do what they are leaned to do in specific situations and these inclinations come from our cravings and desires. Would it mean we are actually slaves of our feelings?. But essentially, this makes us free because at the end we do what we want. However, if we are slaves to our feelings, and our feelings are results of things that have happened to us in the past, then doesn’t that eliminate the possibility of free will entirely?
The key, for me, with his compatibilism is that he is using the term "necessary" in different ways. It's curious that he would spend such a long time and effort talking about the problem of causality, and showing that when we talk about it we probably mean something closer to "probable", but then goes on to talk about causality and its compatibility with freedom in this section.
ReplyDeleteHume’s compatibilism, that involves liberty and necessity, also involves the aspect of free will and determinism but as a compatibilist Hume tries to combine the two by slightly altering their definitions and it creates a situation in which it seems that one requires the other. In this regard free will can be defined as allowing an individual to act freely in the respect that they still possess moral responsibility for their actions and determinism can be defined as the future being dependent upon what happened in the past so that there is only one possible future outcome. In using these two definitions it is possible for both free will and determinism to exist compatibly and it is somewhat like saying that our free will requires the deterministic nature of our world.
ReplyDeleteAfter his long-winded speech of how one cannot know the absolutes of causality and that cause and effect equates to probability, why does he then argue for determinism? If things are as Hume notes in the quote Yonca provided, every natural effect follows from specific causes. However, does that not contradict Hume’s initial words of there is nothing of resemblance in the cause and effect in which glues are given as to how one causes the other? If he were to stand by his points for determinism, he seems to imply that there is a certain degree of absoluteness that one can know in regards to the concept of causality. If he were to stand by his initial view that there is nothing absolute about causality, he then must forsake his argument for determinism for “A” determining “B” is but also a probability.
ReplyDeleteYonca, the question of whether we are slaves to our passions is crucial in relation to Hume because he believes truly that reason only hints and makes judgments but passion is all ruling and the true motivator for all our actions. The question of morality and God giving us reason and rational to choose the right path is totally dismissed by Hume. It's a scary thought that we are slaves to our passions, almost as scary as the thought of life without cause and effect. Hume does not really pierce into how the world would truly be constructed without reason and causality. Its an interesting thought to simultaneously delve into these issues as we wonder what guides us in life and what do we truly trust as the right path. As humans, we have to take these ideas with a grain of salt because free will and morality are concepts we do not grasp on a day to day basis and ironically we do have to abide by Hume's Causality to even know that tomorrow the sun will rise so we will be able to confront these principles with clarity and foresight.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm having issue with the understanding of how one can believe in compatibilism and also believe in an omnipotent, all benevolent God. If I am understanding Hume correctly, the various human experiences necessarily have a cause which are governed. Hume then describes liberty as "the power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will (63)." Compatibilism is essentially the ability to make a decision of which we can be held responsible for situations controlled. Doesn't the will have to be separate from the causes Hume states are necessary? Why would God intentionally cause a world to come into existence of which we have the dependent free will to do evil, which is counter to his omnipotence and benevolence? If this were the case He would have probably have created a world of good allowing us to perform good deeds by free will WITHOUT the presence of evil. Hume's argument essentially takes Gods omnipotence away by leading his actions of causality down a path which runs counter to his essence
ReplyDeleteI think we as humans like to know things. Whether these things are actually true or not are totally and more than likely not true in Hume’s view. But getting back to human nature we all tend to fill in the blanks when we perceive things, this has worked for millions of years so why debate about it now? Things happen for a reason….they say giving into the theory of cause and affect entirely. If I were to say “every time I blink my eyes a puppy dies” the statement might be true in a sense that when A happens B follows but one event has nothing to do with the other really. Best we can do is make hypothesizes and guess-timations on future events.
ReplyDeleteNow talking about the future and the lack of being able to predict any of it, one could argue that we make our own since nothing is certain but uncertainty. That the sun will come out tomorrow is wishful thinking for red headed orphans. It is romantic to think that we have freedom and free will but sooner or later it seems otherwise. Many conscience decisions were subconscious decisions and many of those were basal animalistic choices made for us and not by us.