Philosophy
Determinism is the policy to all events of human action that are determined by the external causes to the will. Determinism can be used to imply how the human beings are obstructed from free will and therefore they cannot be held accountable for their moral actions. The concept of determinism has a traditional view of that relies on very firm and strict notion (Schnauder, 2009). It is notable to say that the idea of free will is characterized with the illusion that arises from the claims made from determinism. Determinism affects the basis of ideas and future decisions as it is challenged under the normal will of an individual (CAVE, 2016). According to philosophers determinism may be mainly concerned with the human behavior but it is still based on nature and nurture as they are the factors that determine behavior as a result of interaction (Schnauder, 2009).
Free will refers to the ability to choose different courses of action whereby an individual can make a personal judgment and choices that have not being determined by any past event. Determinism implies that free will can only be possible on one course of an event as it considers it being inconsistent with the reality of free will (Lemos, 2013). According to philosophers, there are different views of free will where some argue that determinism does not hold free will, it might exist or determinism does actually hold free will and that free will do not exist at all.
Hard determinism is a theory that refers to human beings behavior and actions that are wholly determined by the external factors. This, therefore, the theory argues that there is no genuine free will to a human being and ethical accountability (Schnauder, 2009). The argument of hard determinism holds that determinism is true and therefore no free will exists. Hard determinism refers to nomological determinism in that a position may be taken up with respect to the other determinism as it obliges the future entirely. An overview of hard determinism shows that it is not fully considered to earth but in the reality, as it involves the light effects from the other galaxies for it considers the whole period and not just a deterministic period of time (CAVE, 2016).
The relation of hard determinism is bi-directional as it determines the future state which means that it is not possible to change an individual fact without changing them affecting their entire timeline. The hard determinist support that their eternalist view as they do not believe that they can be any genuine chance or a possibility but only that there are ideas of 100% likelihood of events (Schnauder, 2009). The argument of hard determinist can be compared to that of the law pluralists that there are no laws in physics. The feasibility of evaluating determinism is dared by what individuals know; think they can know ideas and the theory of everything. Hard determinist system exhibits behaviors that are hard to predict due to the variation of the starting condition (CAVE, 2016). The hard determinism system indicates the possibility for vastly differences results that are from a similar initial condition.
Hard determinists believe that there is no human action that is free (CAVE, 2016). There is a more rational perspective of human beings and their actions. The system of hard determinism is helpful in the judiciary system when it is most convincing (Schnauder, 2009). This is because individual actions can be explained as there was a result of an event that happened in the past that was beyond their control which makes free will and determinism incompatible. The approach of hard determinism focuses on the causes rather than the instant causes of an individual action.
Soft determinism views human being behavior and actions in a manner that they are determined by the casual events and that human free will do exist as it can be described from a capacity of acting accordingly to one's nature (Lemos, 2013). The behaviors are shaped by the external factors such as the society, heredity and the upbringing as opposed in hard determinism. Soft determinism acknowledges ethics while the hard determinists reject ethics and moral judgment. There is still a reason for hope as the important issue is not about personal responsibility as argued in hard determinism.
There are implications of hard determinists as they reject free will. Soft determinism argues against hard determinism as it views human beings as unique creatures as they possess free will (Lemos, 2013). As for hard determinism refutes the importance of free will which is crucial in identifying humans distinctly from other forms of animals (Schnauder, 2009). It argues that human beings are the same as robots as they are no freer. In addition to the approach, it is wrong to convict a criminal on the basis that they could not help it. The approach of hard determinism cold led to an unstable society that could be filled with troubles and mayhems. According to soft determinism being free is a choice (Lemos, 2013).
Reference
CAVE, S. (2016). THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL. Atlantic, 317(5), 68-74.
Lemos, J. (2013). Freedom, responsibility, and determinism: A philosophical dialogue. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co.
Schnauder, L. (2009). Free will and determinism in Joseph Conrad's major novels. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
