essay#5

            The problem of free will is answered in different ways by Paul Ree who is a hard determinist and C.A. Campbell who argues on the side of Libertarianism.  Both philosophers raise strong arguments for there beliefs, and both perspectives hold possible truth.  It is Ree’s determinism however which has a stronger basis of proof and therefore offers a better answer to the question of free will.

            Ree states that in order for an act to be freely determined it must be able to act as an “absolute beginning”.  What he means by this is that it can not be the result of any prior cause.  This he argues is not possible due to the law of causality, and therefore the will is not free.  “The act of will is in fact preceded by a sufficient cause.  Without such a cause the act of the will cannot occur; and, if the sufficient cause is present, the act of will must occur.”  To explain the law of causality we are given the example of a stone, that without some form of external cause such as the wind to blow it, or water and time to erode it, would stay in exactly the same state.  Certainly we cannot argue that the stone could ever move on its own, without some form of proceeding cause.  We are aware of this because what alters the state of a stone is external.  Although at a much higher level, the same law of causality is true for Humans, it is just internal and invisible; therefore we are not aware of it and believe that we have the power to choose between two possibilities.  Ree argues that although we might feel that we have the debate back and forth between something, even our small considerations for and against something are determined by past experiences and events which lead to even our questions.  Because we are not always conscious of what events of the past have lead us to our present position we are under an illusion of freedom, that in reality does not exist.  Ree does not deny that multiple possibilities are available to us at a given time; however he states that which possibility is realized is determined by the events of the past.  It is because of this that he argues that no one can be held responsible for their actions.  This concept is applied to both blame and praise.  He says that we can find certain actions agreeable or disagreeable but not attributable to the individual who undertook them.  By this principle society can not punish a person for retribution, but only for rehabilitation or social security.  Ree believes that because people cannot control the events or path of their lives, we should be all the more responsible and caring for those members of our society who are disadvantaged or less fortunate than ourselves. 

            Campbell’s views on free will contradict Ree’s determinism.  He believes that humans are both free and undetermined.  His proof of this argument is through what he calls “moral effect”.  Basically this describes a circumstance where we struggle against temptation when offered a choice between what we should do, and what we wish to do. It is this feeling of tension between duty and desire that he believes is proof that we are free to choose what path we take.  If we were determined, then we would not have to refrain from doing anything, we would just do it.  For a situation to be one of Moral responsibility for Campbell requires that an individual could have acted and chosen otherwise in the circumstance.  He claims that it is unaffected by heredity or environmental factors, situations were these factors do come into play are defined as ones of diminished responsibility.  An example of this would be someone who had served time in prison, was abused there, lost hope and upon re-entering society commits another crime.  Campbell would argue in this case that the individual was not the soul author of his choices and those other factors influenced his behavior.  Campbell does believe in holding individuals accountable for there actions, be it blameworthy or otherwise.  This holds true even in cases of diminished responsibility, as Campbell says we are blaming the individual for there past acts which generated his current state of mind that led him to chose the current situation that he did. Campbell wants to recognize that free will can exist along with the predictability of behavior.

            When we compare these two perspectives Ree’s arguments seem stronger than Campbell’s.  Basically Campbell’s proof for the existence of free will is that we feel free to decide between two moral choices.  However Ree accounts for this in his argument by stating the process of deciding between two factors is determined.  I think we want to believe Campbell’s arguments because they follow what we experience with our own senses while Ree’s ideas contradict that.  However outside the fact that Campbell argues what we feel, he offers no sound proof of it being true in reality.