Holbach thinks that free will is an illusion and that the actions of man are never free. He reasons that man’s actions are determined by how the exterior state of the world affects our beliefs and values that have been shaped by other outside factors throughout our life. As a skeptic his arguments are very convincing, but through the arguments of Chisholm, I will provide an alternate view that provides reason for ultimately doubting Holbach’s conclusions. In my essay I will argue libertarianism over hard determinism.
Holbach takes a very firm stand on determinism. He argues that the will “is a modification of the brain…. [The] will is necessarily determined by the qualities, good or bad, agreeable or painful, of the object or the motive that acts upon his senses….” After establishing that the will is determined by something outside of us, he goes on to give several examples. The example that I will discuss is that of the man “with a violent thirst”. When this man sees a water fountain, his desire to quench his thirst combined with his desire of self-preservation motivate him want to drink from the fountain to fulfill both of these desires. Conversely, if the man finds out that the fountain is poisoned, he would weigh his desire of thirst quenching against his desire of staying alive. Holbach says that one who is against determinism would state that it is here where free will is proven. However, Holbach slams down this thought by saying that while one does have the capacity to weigh the pros and cons of either decision, the ultimate decision made is a result of the character of the person in question, and this character was formed by uncontrollable forces outside of the individual. Since Holbach believes that all events are caused by uncontrollable factors, he states that no man is morally responsible for his or her actions.
According to determinism, every event is caused by previous events that affect the circumstances surrounding the present event. All of the readings that we have covered seem to agree that there are events that are determined, but when the event involves a human being, the debates mount. Holbach argues that every “choice” that is made comes from the effect outside influences have on your character which was, in turn formed by uncontrollable forces outside of the individual. Since the person is question is not the original cause of an event, Holbach says that one cannot be held responsible for any consequences that may arise. It is here that I will put forward a couple of counter statements to Holbach’s arguments.
In my first statement, I will use the example of the dropping of a pencil. When asked what causes the dropping of the pencil, one would say the opening of the hand which held it. This would be the effect of causation, true; but gravity is what made the pencil fall to the floor as opposed to, say floating toward the ceiling or moving off to the right. It can be determined from this analysis of the example that there are factors other than events that lead to the end result. What caused gravity? Without going into a cosmologically theological debate, one would say that this omnipresent force “just was”. If only a portion of the contributing factors are events or were caused by events, then some of the factors were caused by something other than an event. In the case of the gravity, it is currently accepted as a law of physics that has always existed. However in the case of the hand releasing the pencil, what caused the opening of the hand? Neurological impulses sent by the brain. What causes this impulse to be sent? While I think Holbach would argue that it was the desire to do so created by outside forces, I believe Chisholm would say that the cause lies in what he calls “the agent”.
Chisholm claims that the agent is “the self” that takes into account all outside factors and desires and makes a free decision. While Chisholm says that outside forces can influence the actions of the agent, a mere desire cannot set the body in motion. The agent can comply with desires, or it can go against them. According to Chisholm, the agent’s “decision” leads to the action of the brain which leads to the end result.
Holbach, in his deterministic way, would ask what caused the agent. I think that Chisholm would say that, like gravity in my example, the agent “just is”: “a prime mover unmoved.”
In my second statement, I will address Holbach’s belief that no one should be held responsible for their actions. Holbach argues that: “…everything conspires to render man vicious and criminal….” and that one cannot be held responsible for something that was not in his or her power to do or not to do. I imagine that Chisholm would disagree with Holbach by saying that as long as the agent is capable of making a choice (not restrained in any way); the agent is free and therefore can be held accountable for his or her actions. Every action made by the agent is and was a conscious choice that was made based on influencing factors and the personality, beliefs, and desires of the agent.
Holbach would probably single out my wording, saying that the personality, beliefs, and desires of the agent are determined by outside factors. I, however, think Chisholm would argue that the personality, beliefs, and desires of the agent are influences affected by outside influences and that the decision to follow them is a decision that the agent is free to make. Although agents have a tendency to make the choice that would satisfy his or her desires and beliefs, the agent is no more or less free whether he decides to follow or go against them.
I have no doubt in my mind that the authors discussed in this essay would agree that some actions taken by an individual do cause other things to happen that we can predict through analysis of the state of the universe at the given time. I feel Chisholm, however, adds one crucial component to this thinking: the agent, in its “prime mover unmoved” state is part of the state of the universe at the given time. I now return to my pencil example. Since we know that Chisholm’s “agent” has made a conscious decision to let go of the pencil (because it wanted to), and we know the characteristics of Earth’s gravity, we can predict with 100% accuracy that, on Earth, the pencil will fall towards the center of the planet. While Holbach says that everything is determined by other factors, he fails, in Chisholm’s eyes, to see that while the agent itself may be “caused”, the decisions it makes are not caused by anything more than itself, so long as the agent is unrestrained. The decisions go on to cause other events and so forth.
Upon analysis of the above essay, you can see that I have raised Holbach’s argument for determinism, and, through Chisholm’s essay, provided an equally viable alternative. Since these are a few of the reasonable conclusions that can be made based on our current knowledge on the subject, one is free to make his or her own decision. Whether or not that decision is free depends on which alternative you choose to believe.