I'm going to try to talk about both of these questions as one, because I feel they are linked well enough to make a connection.
First, I don't think accepting determinism can really be beneficial. There are those who would argue that it gives them comfort to think that their lives are going well because they are supposed to, or that the world has determined them to be born in an industrialized country with a good chance of leading a happy life. I say that these people, whether or not they believe in God, are in the same category. They accept that there is something in the world outside of their control that is determining their lives, and they feel complacency as a result. Whether or not you choose to label this kind of control as God makes no difference, you are still accepting that you have no choice against an overwhelming control.
Second, I would argue that we don't gain anything by thinking this way. Which person is more likely, do you think, to make the more radical decisions for themselves - a person who thinks they are in complete control of their own destiny, or someone who has accepted that the universe has a will of its own? This premise assumes that we do actually have free will and that those people adhering to determinism are fooling themselves, but I think I can make this clearer with one last point.
Determinism likes to make you think that you have no control. The way I view determinism chalks it up to not much more than this statement, "Well of course everything has a cause, and of course every cause makes an effect, but that doesn't mean that any specific cause can force any specific effect." Determinism would have a person believe that if they did well, it was because the workings of the world led them to do well, and vice-versa. However, it might just as well be true that you have the ability to create causes for yourself, and that you are not stuck in any kind of cause and effect chain. What is the driving force behind any action made by a person who believes in free will? It is the thought that they are in control of their choices. Is this not as much of a cause as anything else? Does believing in free will not alter what would happen to you just as much as believing in determinism? So then, what separates one from the other? It is a person's ability to choose. A person who has learned how to think through the choices they have made and the choices they will make is breaking out of the determinist cycle. They are altering the effects which the causes they make in their life have, i.e.: the difference between doing something instinctual and doing something because you know it's the right thing to do. This core concept of free will is often mislabeled as determinism, because it still requires different causes in your life for you to make these choices, but really, this is what free will is. An animal that cannot think about its own decisions, such as an ant or a fly, does not possess free will. It is purely instinctual, and will act as such. But an animal such as a human, who can look at different reasons to perform different actions, is capable of altering what happens in their life.
So I believe accepting determinism exclusively is not beneficial in any way, just as how I would say accepting things that happen in your life because they are "God's will" is just as much of a waste. I believe that determinism and free will both exist, that they are a constant struggle in a developing mind, and that we are the only true masters of our fate.
Q: How can accepting free will not be beneficial?
No comments:
Post a Comment