FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM
Introduction
Stimulus
In Christopher Nolan’s, ‘Tenet’, The Protagonist is tasked with preventing a future cataclysm utilising
the ability to invert time, there being a constant tension between the characters’ perception of
freedom, and simultaneous inability to change the future.
In the scene where Neil speaks to The Protagonist, he states “what's happened, happened” due to
“the mechanics of the world”, alluding to universal causation.
Whilst The Protagonist questions if this is “fate”, the film clearly indicates that there is not a
predetermined destiny, but a universe of actualities, there only being one course of possible events.
From this dialogue, questions are raised surrounding Nolan’s accuracy in depicting the universe.
Determinism and Free Will
However, to begin examining this issue, the notions of determinism and free will need to be
understood, determinism stating that all events are caused by previous events, and free will being
the power of choosing between different courses of action.
Philosophies
Philosophies that refer to these concepts include compatibilism and incompatibilism.
Compatibilism states that causation is necessary for free will as without it our actions would be
random.
We can be considered free if our actions are performed in accordance with our true desires,
uncoerced by external pressures.
On the other hand, incompatibilism holds that causation removes our capacity for free will,
incompatibilist theories including libertarianism, which claims that our actions are free and
performed without determined conditions, and hard determinism, which advocates that human
actions are caused by preceding events.
Societal Implications
This debate has important societal implications involving individual responsibility, moral
accountability, and the role of institutions in shaping human behaviour.
As societal structure relies on our freedom and moral responsible, modifications may be required for
justice systems and educational approaches if determinism prevails.
Evaluation
This essay will critically evaluate all perspectives, first finding that compatibilism is a flawed theory,
unable to justify how we have freedom without the ability to act otherwise.
And whilst libertarianism and determinism provide valuable interpretations of the universe, their
compelling criticisms cause both theories to lack complete justification.
Thus, one can reasonably adopt the two-languages view, where it is proposed that we are
multifaceted beings that can study humans in a variety of ways.
For instance, one could adopt the first-person stance, aligning with Scruton's claim that personhood
emerges as a facilitator for consciousness and lived experience.
Those who accept this position consider individuals as self-aware beings with agency over their
actions. Alternatively, one could adopt the third-person stance, grounded in scientific investigation,
recognising that our capacity for rational thought enables objective thinking.
From this viewpoint, those with a reductionist outlook might perceive individuals as determined
neurophysiological systems.
Ultimately, the languages of ‘action’ and ‘causes’ are merely two different ways of describing the
world – “neither is superior to the other, neither rules out the other”.
Compatibilism
General Theory
Compatibilism maintains that determinism is true, causation being necessary for free will as without
it our actions would be random.
Hobbes and Stace
Introduction
Stimulus
In Christopher Nolan’s, ‘Tenet’, The Protagonist is tasked with preventing a future cataclysm utilising
the ability to invert time, there being a constant tension between the characters’ perception of
freedom, and simultaneous inability to change the future.
In the scene where Neil speaks to The Protagonist, he states “what's happened, happened” due to
“the mechanics of the world”, alluding to universal causation.
Whilst The Protagonist questions if this is “fate”, the film clearly indicates that there is not a
predetermined destiny, but a universe of actualities, there only being one course of possible events.
From this dialogue, questions are raised surrounding Nolan’s accuracy in depicting the universe.
Determinism and Free Will
However, to begin examining this issue, the notions of determinism and free will need to be
understood, determinism stating that all events are caused by previous events, and free will being
the power of choosing between different courses of action.
Philosophies
Philosophies that refer to these concepts include compatibilism and incompatibilism.
Compatibilism states that causation is necessary for free will as without it our actions would be
random.
We can be considered free if our actions are performed in accordance with our true desires,
uncoerced by external pressures.
On the other hand, incompatibilism holds that causation removes our capacity for free will,
incompatibilist theories including libertarianism, which claims that our actions are free and
performed without determined conditions, and hard determinism, which advocates that human
actions are caused by preceding events.
Societal Implications
This debate has important societal implications involving individual responsibility, moral
accountability, and the role of institutions in shaping human behaviour.
As societal structure relies on our freedom and moral responsible, modifications may be required for
justice systems and educational approaches if determinism prevails.
Evaluation
This essay will critically evaluate all perspectives, first finding that compatibilism is a flawed theory,
unable to justify how we have freedom without the ability to act otherwise.
And whilst libertarianism and determinism provide valuable interpretations of the universe, their
compelling criticisms cause both theories to lack complete justification.
Thus, one can reasonably adopt the two-languages view, where it is proposed that we are
multifaceted beings that can study humans in a variety of ways.
For instance, one could adopt the first-person stance, aligning with Scruton's claim that personhood
emerges as a facilitator for consciousness and lived experience.
Those who accept this position consider individuals as self-aware beings with agency over their
actions. Alternatively, one could adopt the third-person stance, grounded in scientific investigation,
recognising that our capacity for rational thought enables objective thinking.
From this viewpoint, those with a reductionist outlook might perceive individuals as determined
neurophysiological systems.
Ultimately, the languages of ‘action’ and ‘causes’ are merely two different ways of describing the
world – “neither is superior to the other, neither rules out the other”.
Compatibilism
General Theory
Compatibilism maintains that determinism is true, causation being necessary for free will as without
it our actions would be random.
Hobbes and Stace
