A Philosophical Debate

COMPATIBILISM

LEKE ODETOLA

A more sane approach

Are those feelings of achievement null and void? Are those feelings of remorse entirely

unwarranted? Can we still be culpable or rewarded for our actions even in a deterministic world?

I am in support of the view that even if determinism were true in all its assumptions, we can still

be morally held accountable for our actions, good or bad.

In this essay, I am going to prove that determinism as a theory should not and does not translate

to a complete lack of free will. It is, however, important at this point for clarity to

define determinism and compatibility. This is necessary because you cannot talk about

compatibilism in philosophy without talking about determinism.

Determinism is the view that all events are caused to happen by what came before. Given

the total state of the universe and the law of nature, what happens next is inevitable. In one

phrase, we are ‘wired’ to do whatever we do, hence no such thing as free will. Compatibilism, on

the other hand, is the view that even if determinism were correct, we still possess free will and therefore

can be morally responsible for our actions. Compatibilism, therefore, concludes that determinism

and free will are mutually exclusive.

In my view, free will is embedded in a deterministic nature. As an example, if the laws are fixed

and yesterday’s actions caused today’s actions, then why should we have variations in

how we respond when we face identical situations? Why are we not Zombies? We react differently because even amid a deterministic universe, we still possess a latent force -

free will. It is the reason for our variations. It is the reason we act differently even when we are

faced with identical situations. Determinism is like a wheel, and free will is also like a wheel;

Hence, we operate as a wheel within a wheel, perfecting the compatibility of a manifested free will

In a deterministic world. I seek to buttress my point further that free will can be compatible with

determinism by sharing the following event that happened in a remote part of Africa many years

ago.

An armed robber with an accomplice put his gun to the head of two friends. They knelt in front

of him. He stood behind them and said to them both,” Whatever happens now depends on

you, your money or your life.” He further said, “I give you forty-five seconds to come to your

decision.” In other words, the robber gave them forty-five seconds to choose between their money

and their lives. The taller friend wasted no time in dropping his bundle of cash to the floor for the

robber and his accomplice, choosing to keep his life rather than his money. The robber pushed

him down and told him to run. He ran! The other friend, after forty-five seconds, was asked by the

robber what he had decided. He said he could not release his money because he had plans, the

robber shot him immediately upon hearing this and did not take his money.

In this scenario, was every action purely deterministic? Purely a free will expression or a

combination of a free choice expressed in a deterministic environment? Were these

two men morally responsible for their actions? Was the robber exercising his free will when he

gave the two men the options to pick from? Or was he being compelled by a deterministic

environment like a Zombie? Was it not clear in this situation that the robber had placed the power to act in the hands of these two friends? The responsibility and the decision to live or die.

To shift left or right. To decide, into the hands of the two friends.

What I am saying here is that determinism cannot solely explain the actions/inactions of the men

in this scenario. Arriving at this decision on the go required a lot of complicated inner processes,

probably taxing their minds, emotions, desires and will. Their principle, nature and natural

expectations were all put to the test.

Determinism equally says that what we do today was triggered by past events in our lives

therefore we are not morally accountable for them. The two friends were not the causal source of

this event but were responding to it in real time. In this situation, could we have had a different

outcome? If so, why not? Because of choices. Two men under the same condition, facing the

same danger but acting differently, is a factor of the application of available free will that is

embedded in us as humans.

I know that some hardcore determinists might say that these men acted differently under the

same situation because of genetics. They would recite the mantra that we have no control over

genetics. They would say, for example, if a child stole a toy from another child, is he morally

culpable? Or sarcastically ask whether that action by the child constitutes expression of free

will? Hard-core determinists do not believe in free will. They will further and emphatically

conclude that all that happened in this story could not have happened otherwise because they

were just the outcome of firing neurons without any freedom involved. If this were entirely the

case, then we are a slave to our neurons. They further argue that since the universe gave you your features, the universe decides what you

do with them. That you do what you do because of what you're like. Hardcore determinists enjoy

the support of men like Galen Strawson, who affirms that “If determinism is true, then we have

no free will.” Then I have some questions for Galen Strawson and those who hold similar views

and therefore insist that determinism cannot cohabit with free will.

So, if I am not responsible for the way I am. If I have been wired to do whatever I do without my

mind's willing input. If all my choices are just the outcome of my neurons firing. My choice of

clothing, food, movie, etc. If all these are dictated. Done because I was preprogrammed. Because

my features are engineering my feelings. Then why in the world should I have the tiniest feelings

that I am doing all of these willingly? Is this an evil demon? Why should my neurons, my

deterministic neuron, give me that feeling, intense feelings that I am not compelled to do what I

do. That I do them out of my own free will. Why?

Why do I have the feelings and believe that I am a free moral agent? Why do I believe and feel

that buying a birthday gift for my mother was my free choice? How did I know I could have

done otherwise and not bought a gift? Why should I even be discussing this if all my neurons,

mind, emotions, desires and will were entirely deterministic and against free will? It is because I

am not a fluke of neurons. I am like a wheel within a wheel. That is to say that I have free will

operating within a deterministic world.

We indeed have free will within the structure of a deterministic arrangement. These two go

pari passu. My free will always expresses itself in a deterministic world. As a point in case, I ate some vegetables last night. I got prepared to go to campus. I was getting on the train when my

stomach began to rumble like a hippo in a jungle. Oh no! I need to use the washroom. I rescinded my

decision to go to campus and quickly drove back home. One of my decisions was deterministic. I

have no control over it. My other decision was freely mine.

What about my ability to innovate? It is my free will embedded within the fabrics of a

deterministic structure that gives me the ability to innovate. I believe that free will is also the

power to choose what is suitable for yourself. You may decide to go to the University because you

believe there is a gain in doing so. If we choose for gain, for reward and a better life, then we

have free will.

In support of my essay, I would like to quote what David Hume said while talking about

Hypothetical liberty, David Hume, the philosopher, said a liberty of this kind involves and I

quote” a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we

choose to remain at rest, we may; if we decide to move, we also may.” (end of quote).