Consequences of Believing in Determinism
What consequences would a belief in determinism have for one's life? Both Noa Latham and Peter Strawson gave some suggestions of some possible consequences. Noa distinguished fatalism and determinism, and considered consequences in punishing or rewarding if determinism is true. On the other hand, Strawson suggested we should but cannot treat or feel everything in an objective “theoretical conviction”. Latham’s and Strawson’s ideas are similar, and if there is an objective fact of right and wrong, their ideas are very plausible.
I will introduce Latham’s two recommendations in the first three paragraphs, and then I will bring in Strawson’s ideas. Secondly, I will compare these two main arguments and give some suggestion and possible solutions.
As Latham mentioned, if determinism is true, should we think that we do not need to make an effort to do things because the consequences are already determined? Latham said no because this idea expresses that no matter what we do now, the future will not change, which is obvious false. It is called fatalism in the article, and fatalism is not as the same as determinism. Also, fatalism can be understood that every particular state at particular time is fated, so whatever we do is already determined and inevitable, and the future is also determined and inevitable. This expression of fatalism is just determinism, so we still need to work hard to achieve the goal although whether we work hard or not is determined and whether we can achieve the goal is also determined. (Latham, p.74)
Latham also suggested that if determinism is true, and if there is an objective fact of right (just) or wrong (unjust), then we should reconsider our motivation of punishing and rewarding people. For example, if person A killed person B, should we say that A is justified to be punished for the murder? Latham argued that if determinism is true, divine punishing or rewarding after someone’s life is unjust because what would happen in their life is inevitable before they are born. Then for the murdering, what A would do is inevitable, such that for person A, all the past experiences, events, and surroundings forced him to kill B, so he cannot choose to do anything other than kill B and there is no chance for A to undermine the event. As a result, A should not take all the responsibilities and we are not justified in punishing him purely because of what he did. Similarly, it is unjustified to reward somebody simply because of his previous actions. (Latham, p.75)
Consequently, Latham claimed that it is implausible to say there is “a moral truth that there is something intrinsically good about punishing vice and rewarding virtue.” Then there is a further question: should we avoid or abandon all punishments and rewards? No. We should not do this because although those considerations of retribution and desert are unjust, we can still punish or reward people to induce their further actions. To explain this, we do not want the crime to happen often, so punishment is used to prevent the criminal from doing bad things again; also, punishment is able to warn others not to do the same thing. Consequently, we do need punishment and because of that, there are indeed not many crimes in the society. (Latham, p.75-76)
In Strawson’s point of view, we may abandon all reactive attitudes if determinism is true; conversely, that seems unpractical. Reactive attitudes, explained by Strawson, are attitudes and intentions that we attach our goodwill or bad will to because of the relationship between them and us, or because of other particular situations. For example, if your children did something wrong to you, you will not be eager to punish them or even feel very angry because they did not mean to do that. Nevertheless, if your enemy did something good to you, you will still doubt their purpose for doing this. As a result, some people think we should stop having reactive attitudes if we believing in determinism. However, Strawson also claimed that nobody can really abandon the reactive attitudes; and if we do so in a particular case, we still hardly say that is because of determinism. In short, there is nothing changes if we believe in determinism. (Latham, p.82-88)
Latham and Strawson both suggest making certain changes in our moral beliefs if determinism is true. Similarly, they both conclude that people do not need to change their actual activities and practical actions although they may adjust their way of thinking. The difference between their ideas is that Latham considered only the changes in how we should interpret the “punishing vice and rewarding virtue”, whereas Strawson suggested that other people may think all our reactive attitudes should be reconsidered, although that is unpractical. It seems that Latham’s opinion is a particular part in Strawson’s consideration, and it is more reasonable and practical to believe in this part.
This brings me to another question: Is there an objective fact of right or wrong? I will not challenge this topic here because it is too broad and the words are limited. However, if there is not an objective fact of right or wrong, then Latham’s second consideration of consequences in believing in determinism becomes unimportant, and this also explains the incompatible part in Strawson’s idea. To illustrate this, if right and wrong, just and unjust, are relevant, in Latham’s argument, punishing person A for the harmful thing he did to the society is always right and just to the society, and mostly wrong to A although determinism is true. Then we can simply explain that whatever purpose or reason for A to do anything, as long as what he did is harmful, he will be punished. Similar explanation for rewarding can be carries out in this situation. In Strawson’s case, if determinism is true, it is also good to hold the reactive attitudes because it benefits the person involved. For example, I will and I also should attach goodwill to my attitudes toward my friend if they did something good to me although I know they have to do this because having good attitudes toward friends is good, just, and beneficial to me. I will and I also should be angry to the person who offend me although he did not mean to do that because being angry to him is just for me for the reason that he is harmful to me. In Strawson’s examples of children, madmen, or specific conditions, we do not and should not angry or happy with them whatever they did because they will neither offend nor help us. If they did something harmful, there is always a person to take responsibility. In short, under the condition that no objective right or wrong exists, believing in determinism has no consequences. In conclusion, if determinism is true, Latham suggested that we should not do nothing but waiting for the determined consequences of our life. He also claimed that punishing or rewarding people for what they did is unjust concerning the determinism. Strawson argued that we should have some changes in attitudes toward others but we cannot really do this only because of determinism. Both Latham’s and Strawson’s arguments seemed plausible if there is an objective fact of right or wrong. If not, some part of their suggestions would need to be revised. Conclusively, Latham, Strawson and I would agree that if someone holds a belief in determinism, their actions would not actually change. This is important so that the reality of determinism increases, and determinism becomes more reasonable in this case.
Latham, N. PHIL 201 L03 & L 04 Book of Readings. (2007). Calgary: University of Calgary Bookstore.
posted by caleb | 5:38 PM
|
55 comments
