WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T4 Determinism and free will

Hard determinism In the case of hard determinism, a person is determined by both internal and external causes and therefore they have no freedom at all. For example, due to an internal cause (such as the genetic reaction to heat) a person was predetermined to want to take off their blazer. However, they were hindered from doing so by an external cause, i.e. a teacher refused to give them permission to remove their blazer. Therefore, this action was hard determined in nature, i.e. a determined internal cause but free from an external cause.

Key quote When first a man has an appetite or will to something, to which immediately before he had no appetite nor will, the cause of his will is not the will itself, but something else not in his own disposing. So that whereas it is out of controversy that of voluntary actions the will is the necessary cause, and by this which is said the will is also caused by other things whereof it disposes not, it follows that voluntary actions have all of them necessary causes and therefore are necessitated. (Hobbes)

Hobbes stated that a person was as free as an unimpeded river. A river that flows down a hill necessarily follows a channel. However, it is also at liberty to flow within the channel. He claimed that the voluntary actions of people are similar. To be at liberty is not to be restrained, which is not the same as to be uncaused. People are free because their actions follow from their will. The actions, however, are necessary in the sense that they originate from a chain of causes and effects. Freedom is all about acting as we will and not being coerced in any way. A. J. Ayer (caused acts vs forced acts) Thomas Hobbes

DRAFT

Specification content Soft determinism: A. J. Ayer (caused acts vs forced acts).

A. J. Ayer (1910–1989) was a British philosopher, particularly known for the development of logical positivism . Logical positivism was a school of Western philosophy that sought to legitimise philosophical discussion by arguing philosophical language should be based on scientific language. Like Hobbes before him, Ayer supported classical soft determinism. Ayer applied his logical positivism theories to Hobbes classical soft determinist argument. As a result, he furthered Hobbes’ theory by illustrating empirically the language difference between soft and hard determinism. Ayer argued that when a situation is soft determinist, i.e. when a person is only determined by an internal cause but not an external cause, the person will use the phrase ‘caused’. For example, the person was ‘caused’ by an internal cause, such as the genetic reaction to heat, to take off their blazer. However, in the case of a hard determinist situation, when the person is determined by both an internal and an external cause, the person will use the phrase ‘forced’. For example, the person was ‘forced’ to keep their blazer on by the teacher. Therefore, Ayer concludes, from his empirical studies of language, that people make a language distinction between hard determinism, where both external and internal causes are forcibly determining an event, and soft determinism where only an internal cause is causing an event, but there is no external cause. This clearly illustrates there is a distinction between classical soft determinism and hard determinism. Ayer summed up the above difference with his famous analogy. He stated that if he walked across a room because someone compelled him, observers would conclude he was not acting freely and that this ‘forced’ movement was completely determined. However, if he walked across a room without being compelled by another, observers would still assume it had a cause because all actions must be willed by the person, even if our will is determined. However, they would not say he was ‘forced’ because there was no external force placed upon him because at the moment of walking across the room there was no external force.

4.8 Explain the difference between an internal and external cause.

Key term Logical positivism: school of Western philosophy that sought to legitimise philosophical discussion by arguing philosophical language should be based on scienti c language

85