Hume and Free Will

Hume, when referring to the assertion that “one of the consequences of the argument against free will is that we are not responsible for our actions”, states that while we live in a world of irregularities, there are still consistencies within human nature that would be in effect with or without free will. These consistencies allow for the assumption that humans are still responsible for their actions.

Hume believes that humans are consistent. They are not perfectly consistent, but they have consistencies in their nature. He believes that the randomness evident in life is not as purely random as it seems. While some things are down to just luck (like say the lottery) and no human has no influence on it, there are many random events that can be assumed and accounted for. For example, Hume presents the argument of medication. Lets say you take medication for a cold. And this medicine works at curing your cold 999 out of 1000 times. And the 1 instance where it doesn’t does not mean you cannot rely on the medicine, its just a part of the randomness of life. Hume argues that the body, much like life, is incredibly complex. These consistencies (such as the medicine working most of the time) are not absolute, but are so close to absolute that its irrelevant to assume that these small random chances make human nature unpredictable and make humans irresponsible for their own actions.

In Hume’s article, he states that “Should a traveller… bring us an account of men… different from any with whom we were ever acquainted; men, who were entirely divested of avarice, ambition, or revenge; who knew no pleasure but friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should immediately, from these circumstances, detect the falsehood, and prove him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and dragons, mirades and prodigies.”. Hume is stating that while there is diversity and randomness within the world, there are still consistencies of which we draw to in human nature. While most are seen as typically negative, such as greed and the goal of promoting oneself over that of their community, they are consistencies nonetheless. Hume is a believer that while these consistencies are enough to ensure that people should be held responsible for their actions.

Words: 387

Causal Determinism

Causal determinism is the idea that after certain events happen at a specific time, the events to follow are guaranteed to happen due to natural law.

Causal determinism differs from the idea in “fate” in that nothing originally is/was destined to happen. Causal determinism is the idea of guaranteed effect of all actions, whereas fate assumes that all actions, even from the beginning of time, are all already guaranteed. However it can be viewed that since time has “existed” for some time, that all events are now going to happen due to fate; this is where causal determinism and fate are incredibly similar.

Causal determinism also differs form probability in that probability is just a guess. While a mathematically provable good guess, it is not guaranteed. Causal determinism states that these events are guaranteed to occur. Probability just states that they are likely to occur

Causal determinism would not change how I view the world or force me to change my actions in any way, even if it were guaranteed to be true. My reasoning for this is fairly simple: it would give me a reason to live. Even if that reason were a lie, I would still feel like I have a reason to be alive. If I just assumed all of life is events were going to happen and whatever I “decide” (since I can not really decide if causal determinism exists since all of my actions are already set to happen) was meaningless, then I would view my life as meaningless; it would give me no will to live as I would just be living as a shell of a person.

This brings me to MacIntyre, who states in “The Story Telling Animal”, that “When someone complains… that his or her life is meaningless, he or she is often and perhaps characteristically complaining that the narrative of their life has become unintelligible to them, that it lacks any point, any movement towards a climax…”. I would find myself at a complete loss if I drifted away from how I live my life normally. I would see myself as pointless, as an object. I would feel I have no say in anything, and in feeling that powerless I would probably just drive myself insane. Not that I am power hungry, but that the lack of any control is truly frightening.

If the idea of causal determinism were true, I would do everything in my power to continue my life as I am doing now. If I were to truly accept causal determinism, and assume my every action to be meaningless, I would not be able to function as a person. While I do not need my life to have meaning to everyone I meet, I need my life to having meaning to me; with that I need the ability to know my actions are my own. I need that amount of self control/power to be able to function in the “determined” world. Without it I honestly have no idea what I would do.

Words: 506

This Storytelling Animal

“To be the subject of a narrative that runs from one’s birth to one’s death is… to be accountable for the actions and experiences which compose a narratable life” – Alasdair MacIntyre

The significance of this quote is fairly simple; each individual is accountable for what they do throughout the course of their lives. Each action and interaction affects us and develops us as people. Even if these interactions are forgotten, they are still part of our development as individuals. Even if these actions are far different than what we would do now as people, they are still part of our “story” and are still part of who we identify as.

This particular quote definitely spoke to me. In my sophomore year of high school, I was often really rude, inconsiderate, lazy, and just overall not a very great person. I distinctly remember getting into arguments with classmates, saying some rather mean and sometimes twisted things, and having easily avoidable drama. None of these interactions were threatening by any means, they just were not considerate of the other persons feelings. This changed rather rapidly when I had a long discussion with my AP World History teacher; I had come in after school to take a midterm that I had missed. After completing the exam I spoke with my teacher as he graded it (the conversation began because I had very clearly failed that midterm, resulting a D in the class) and he spoke to me about my actions in class. He noticed I would flip often when interacting with students verses interacting with adults/teachers. I would speak to teachers with incredible kindness and respect, but for students I would occasionally be very rude. I had never really thought about how my actions could affect other people.

Shortly after this meeting I changed very rapidly, I became less talkative (which, in this case, is an incredibly good thing), much more respectful and considerate person. My grades also quickly improved (I went from a low-near failing D to the following semester earning a high B in AP World) While my closer friends will say I still have a “meaner” sense of humor, they also are aware that it is all in good fun, and that nothing “mean” I say is really with intent of being mean.

However, while I do take full accountability for my actions prior to that meeting, I also constantly say that I am a different person than I once was. While untrue, as I agree with MacIntyre that I am still that same person and the unity of my recollecting stories is what makes me me, it makes explaining the shift much easier. I like to believe I would not be the inconsiderate person I was, but I know I am.

I feel me being that inconsiderate person then was actually good for me as a person now; it was good for my story. It helped me develop as a person. It allowed me to look broader than myself and see that what I do affects other people.

Words: 510