Evaluating Hard Determinism

Philosophical determinism is illustrated most famously with the analogy given by Locke about the man in the room. He said that just as the man is ignorant of the fact that the door is locked, and uses his 'freewill' to remain in the room, so we are ignorant of our freewill and believe we have it when, in fact, we do not. He then said that 'freewill is an illusion'.

The analogy appears to successfully prove determinism however Locke never actually mentioned hard determinism. He merely said that freewill didn't exist. For this reason, his argument could not be considered an effective way of demonstrating the lack of freewill.

It can also be said that the very fact that you are choosing to deny any existence of freewill shows that it does actually exist. Locke has chosen not to believe in freewill (when he could) but believed in hard determinism. Paradoxically, as he has chosen that viewpoint, he has exercised his freewill to believe it.

Scientific determinism aims to prove the existence of determinism and that humans have no freewill by saying that the existence of genes and DNA resulting in characteristics and behaviour being passed down demonstrated that all humans behaviour has been passed down from generation to generation and so freewill does not exist.This belief was championed by Daniel Denett of the genetic fixity project.

However, recent studies such as those done by Dr Sirigu show that actually proof for the existence of freewill can be found in the human brain.

It is also worth saying that as all behaviour, according to scientific , biological determinism, are just handed down to each generation, surely there must be a starting point If there was one starting point, how did it result in a variety of different outcomes present in different people's lives, if that one thing was to be repeated every generation. Why the diversity?

Lastly, psychologist Pavlov tried to show humanity has no freewill through his tests on dogs. They were conditioned to produce saliva in response to hearing a bell, regardless of if food was actually being produce. He said that just as dogs can be pre-conditioned to response in that certain way, so we as humans are just preconditioned and predetermines to respond in a certain way. We are not acting as a result of freewill.

Carl Rogers however said that behaviour was just because of a process called self-actualization rather than pre-determined and conditioned factors. We actually can exercise freewill.

I think that in conclusion, psychological determinism is the strongest and most persuasive form of determinism that advocates that humans have no freewill.

I think that if DNA and genes demonstrated proper, hard determinism, then we would basically not be as unique as we are and just be like copies.

As well as this, although Locke's point is logical and follows through, I think that the very fact that one has chosen to believe one over the other (even the lack of freewill over the existence) shows that they have chosen to believe it, through exercising their freewill. Even more so, if there are two options because then they have chosen one over the other regardless of if they think that one does not exist (freewill)

However I do think that there are factors that influence a person' beahaviour and who they are. So, for this reason , I think that the best approach is to say that soft determinism is how was are humans 'work.

Soft determinism allows for middle ground to be found between determinism and freewill but ensures that neither are more 'forceful' than the other.

27/30