Galasinao 1

Kevin Galasinao

Mrs. Lipinski

Philosophy 216

2 October 2012

The More Accurate Theory: Human Freedom

In my philosophy class, we have discussed chapter 2 of unit 1 in the book, In Search of the Good. We have learned from that chapter that there are four theories which explain why our behaviour is what it is and why we act. These theories are naturalism, religious determinism, social determinism, and human freedom. Out of all the theories, there is one that I mostly agree with.

Naturalism

First, I don’t support the theory of naturalism. Naturalism is the view of the world that takes account of only natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. According to naturalism, your behaviour and actions are caused by your genetic system. I don’t support it because it denies the possibility of ethics and morality. Since your actions would be a natural physical process over which you have no control over and if control would be another facet of your neural organization, there would be no ethics or morality; just your genetic system.

Additionally, research linking human behaviour to genetic predisposition could mean people aren’t guilty of their crimes. Criminals only behaved in a bad way because of their genes. The criminal would either be declared innocent or so constitutionally impaired as to justify incarceration and isolation from the rest of society. The first solution would jeopardize the welfare of society; the criminal would start committing crimes again. The second solution would violate individual rights.

Finally, we have only the foggiest idea of how the relationship between a person’s neural network and his or her actions work. The current estimate is that the human brain has over 100 billion neurons, and each neuron has synaptic connections with other neurons ranging in number from a few hundred to many tens of thousands. All of this enormously complex structure is massed together in a space smaller than a soccer ball. I don’t support naturalism because it denies the possibility of ethics and morality, criminals wouldn’t be guilty of their crimes, and we don’t truly know how the relationship between a person’s neural network and actions truly work.

[Type text]

Galasinao 2

Religious Determinism

Next, although I am Catholic, I do not support religious determinism. Religious determinism is the theory that your behaviour and actions are caused by God. First, according to John Calvin, the French Protestant reformer and theologian, freedom and ethics have no place in the doctrine of predestination. Predestination means fate and destiny. So it is thought that God controls fate and destiny. I don’t agree with Calvin because the Catholic teaching maintains that human freedom and God’s providence do not conflict.

Now, the Puritan tradition strongly believes that God doesn’t want all people to be saved. They hold that God loves and elects some, and rejects others. A person can do nothing to change this election of God. God freely gives salvation to the elect. It’s not because they had more faith or led more perfect lives. It is God’s freedom, but at the expense of human freedom. However, the Catholic tradition has always struggled to maintain that humans are free because of God’s providence. It is true that God’s initiative of love is salvation but God’s love requires and makes possible our co-operation. Finally, the Catholic tradition has been the great defender of human freedom. God is not responsible for our behaviour and actions.

Social Determinism

Unlike naturalism and religious determinism, I support social determinism. Social determinism is the theory that your behaviour and actions are caused by the influences of others upon you by your parents or culture; your psychological state, including any traumatic experiences you may have had; your history; and your social background, including such things as socio-economic status, race, gender, religion, and education. Though, I don’t support it as much as human freedom. I don’t truly support it because even if the past determines who you are in the present, you can always change yourself in the present. You can do that by acting different and doing different things. Your tendency is to focus only on your past in telling the story of your identity but there is more to your story. You are more than what you have done. You are capable of projecting yourself into the future. You can do things like make promises, make commitments, and make choices. You can give your word-yourself-and shape your future. This self is not yet made. You can tell its story only as a promise in your present commitment. That is also your identity. It is an identity that is full of promise, full of possibilities, and full of hope.

Also, you cannot change the events of your past but you can change your perspective of it. For example, if your past event is painful, you can talk to a counsellor about it. Your counsellor might help you discover a different and much more comforting interpretation of the events that

[Type text]

Galasinao 3

happened to you. I support social determinism but not truly because you are more than what you have done and you may be able to change your perspective of past events.

Human Freedom

Finally, I support human freedom more than the other three theories. Human freedom is the human capacity to choose and to act. Humans are free because they have possibilities and capacities to act on these possibilities. According to this theory, your behaviour and actions are caused by free will. I support it because when you exercise your freedom, the action that results makes a mark or a change in the world. In making these marks and changes, you yourself are changed in your very core. Also, you are free because you have possibilities. You can reach into the future by giving your word today and keeping it.

Now, not all philosophers agree on how to explain the human ability to initiate an action. Ludwig Wittgenstein, a British philosopher who’s best known for his contributions to logic and logical positivism, raised an interesting question. “When ‘I raise my arm,’ my arm goes up. And the problem arises: what is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm? You might say, “Nothing!” At least nothing to which I can point.”

If the heart of action lies in the intention of the agent, one who acts freely, to do something, then the heart of action is not something that you can observe. You may say, “I raise my arm.” But saying it is not the same as doing what you intend. It is only when you have done it (your arm is now raised) that whatever you intended shows itself.

Additionally, think of the promise you might make to take someone as your spouse for life. What is this promise you make to another, this commitment to enter into a life-long relationship with someone? You cannot see, touch or smell it, and yet it is not nothing. It is very real. Human freedom is like the commitment. Your behaviour is caused by free will and your actions are caused by your intentions.

I have already learned in my philosophy class, the four theories which explain why our behaviour is what it is and why we act. They are naturalism, religious determinism, social determinism, and human freedom. I don’t support naturalism and religious determinism but I do support social determinism and human freedom. Though, I support human freedom more than social determinism. Human freedom, to me, is the most accurate theory.

[Type text]

Galasinao 4

Works Cited

The National Office of Religious Education of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. In Search of the Good: A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living. Ottawa: Publications Service, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concacan, Inc, 2004: Second Edition 2005. Print.

[Type text]