Determinism has fairly simple components, each of which appear sound and logically reasonable, but which altogether — like all great philosophical doctrines — have immense implications for how we may experience and think of the world. The doctrine posits that all events are causally determined by the environment and that it necessarily follows that all future events must be predetermined. There are two steps to achieving this conclusion; firstly that every event is caused by and in accordance with the operation of the laws of nature. It helps here to start by examining relatively simple structures rather than the murky complexity of human cognition and behaviour. For example, if we were to observe the erosion of a cliff face over a long period of time, it would not be difficult to identify the various factors which contributed to this erosion — waves, drainage, winds etc. In the same way, admittedly with astronomically more intricacy in areas of (current) scientific ignorance, the same explanatory process can be theoretically applied to human behaviour. It is commonplace for us to segregate our beliefs between the ‘physical world’ which we trust operates in the same way that the cliff erosion does, and the freewill which we believe and assert to be an integral and distinguishing factor in human existence. Secondly, determinism argues the idea that every event is produced by the conditions which existed prior to said event. This leads us to an image of the world where everything is mapped out and pre-determined by preceding events, hence the threat that determinism poses to freewill. Here, I will be referring to what philosophers have branded ‘Libertarian Freewill’, which conveniently and reliably maps onto the layman’s conception. This is the idea that we are in some sense the ‘causers’ of our own actions and can, therefore be held morally responsible for them.
***
The real world consequences which are generated from this concept are important and necessary for the institutions which rely on the application of blame, punishment and retribution such as the legal system, political system, education system, employment sector and practically any other merit-based area. If we are to accept determinism, and interpret that it then logically follows that we are ultimately not responsible for any of our actions (though one camp of philosophers argue that they are not mutually exclusive), then hiring a smarter or better-prepared candidate over a less qualified one has the same ethical meaning as hiring someone based on their racial background - a characteristic of which they have no control over. This may sound like a radical analogy, though consider for a moment the factors which have contributed to each action you ‘choose’. You have not chosen your parents, nor your inherited biological or physiological blueprint, the nature of your upbringing, the social and political conditions of your immediate environment, the predispositions of your psychological make-up, the unique neurochemistry of your brain, or an abundance of other factors which are entirely uninfluenced by you. And so if all these both natured and nurtured influences have so heavily contributed in the shaping of us, when is it appropriate to begin holding one morally responsible for a decision or action they make? As a baby, the notion of moral responsibility is dismissed as preposterous and non-sensical, then as a toddler we start to introduce accountability though still with a strong understanding and empathy as to the reasons why certain behaviours are being practiced. Further on, somewhere in between teenage years and adulthood, broader society becomes heavy-handed and relatively uncompromising in the application of blame. Though this may serve a myriad of social functions, it is nevertheless ethically questionable.
***
Now the task remains as to what we should do with this information. On a personal level, the lack of ability in separating agency from individuals leads to a reflexive and instinctive attribution of blame or praise for practically the entirety of other people’s actions. So deeply intuitive is this feeling that it takes some philosophical pondering of the kind previously discussed in order to untangle and seriously consider, even for a moment. But rather than leading to a pessimistic attitude which could perceive actions and choices as meaningless, the doctrine of determinism can be positively incorporated into our everyday psychological arsenal as a tool to enhance our experience of interacting with others. A deterministic framework can provide us an anchor for acceptance, whereby the flaws identified in others can be explained, processed and understand as being the result of prior factors and conditions of which its exhibitor has no control. Just think about how emotionally taxing it is to constantly blame others for their actions - the feelings of anger, jealousy, spite and disappointment lurk in the shadows of our psyche, waiting to momentarily consume us in response to undesirable observations. To separate oneself from these unproductive emotions is deeply ingrained in the philosophical tenets of religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and we can learn from this. “Let go or be dragged”, reads one ancient proverb, referring to the attachment we feel to both the physical and mental comings-and-goings which relentlessly populate our consciousness. To let go of these feelings is to accept determinism and the way people behave; both negatively and positively, and to concede that our own particular defects and biases are equal to those of others. Not only can this lead to an infinite level of empathy and compassion for others, it can also free us from the self-destructive impact of such feelings which are directed inwards. Employing these prima facie abstract philosophical theories into everyday life can be a rich and fulfilling practice, softening the at times jarring disconnect of modern thinking to our shared humanity.