Determinism is easy to understand, which is the result of everything happened is determined by its antecedent states. Since everything in the world can be explained by physical laws, there must be strict causality between everything. If human consciousness is made up of matter, it is controlled by the law of nature. How the world will develop has been doomed by the laws of nature. Just as we can navigate by the laws of physics, we can also predict what will happen in the future by studying the laws of nature.
An example of determinism is dice throwing. We usually think that the number from the dice roll is absolutely random. However, from a physical point of view, the final number of points of a dice is determined by a series of objective reasons, such as the shape, density and strength of the dice when it is shaking, etc., and the movement of the dice must strictly follow the laws of physics. As long as we know all the physical data of any moment before, we can calculate the final number of dice points. Ordinary people think dice is random, just because all the data calculation is too large for us. Laplace is an important French mathematician about determinism, he once said that as long as he had enough data, he could use the law to calculate anything of future world.
The development of determinism has exposed its weakness which is we have to abandon human free will in order to accept determinism. Because determinism tells us that because our thoughts and actions are run by the laws of nature, everything that happens in our history and everything we experience in our life is doomed. people will lose its expectation for the future and find better excuses for their immorality. Determinism’s strengths are not so persuasive to me, such as recognizing that something happens for a reason, lighten the burden for yourself, and realize that you can’t control it.
Compatibilism simply means the integration of determinism and free will. Which is human behavior still having a reason and is also free. For example, when a person is running, this is not a result of being forced or controlled, but because of his free will of running. Compatibilism was supported by some famous philosophers like David Hume and John Stuart Mill. “They tell us that free will is central to morality, religion, politics and our legal system. Indeed, we’re told that free will is crucial to our conception of ourselves as human being.” (Balaguer, M. (2014). Free will. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.)
Compatibilism’s development tries to solve some moral problems and the contradiction between determinism and people’s moral responsibility. Compatibilism refers to free will, which is the subjective freedom we feel, we and others feel free to choose, and then judge moral achievement by the degree of freedom of choice. For example, if a businessman made a decision and made a remarkable achievement in his business, if he had chosen a successful path among many choices at that time, we usually thought he had a good foresight. If he had no choice at that time, he would have to move forward, even if he had succeeded. In the same way, if he fails, if he has many choices, then he has to shoulder the responsibility of failure. Many people will condemn him. If he had no choice at that time, then his failure will be easy to be forgiven. We usually think that he is unlucky or that he has many choices. The general situation is not good. There is nothing we can do.
Therefore, with this criterion, it is impossible to quantify naturally, and the evident good and evil things may be judged more consistently. But for most things, they are often different. There are many loopholes because there are no clear criteria for judging. Compatibilism is also more practical, because it is closer to the moral values of most people. So many people unconsciously use Compatibilism thinking in life.
Libertarianism is also very easy to understand that any person’s property and rights are protected and respected, as long as a person does not infringe on the rights and property of other people, he can be free to do what he wants to do. At the same time, everyone has the right to freedom at all levels, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. “Libertarianism is seen by most to rest on some version of individualism, although there are exceptions.” (Duncan, C., & Machan, T. R. (2005). Libertarianism for and against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Page 27) Libertarianism needs two foundations. The first is consent, that is, consent is reasonable. The second is self-ownership, which means that the individual has absolutely no right to interfere with others.
Libertarianism also conflicts with morality, as the idea of philosopher Kant, even on the basis of mutual agreement, some morality cannot be violated. There are many examples in life, such as when a person asks you to help him commit suicide, even if he really wants to die, but morality and conscience tell us that suicide is wrong, respect for life is the basic moral bottom line. The Strength of libertarianism is that we have absolute freedom as human beings, and we can do what we want without the influence of outside forces, of course that we will not violate the freedom and rights of others. We should also be vigilant, because libertarianism may develop into anarchism. Because all forces that influence individuals include any form of government intervention. At least at the present level of human development, it is not a good idea to touch anarchism prematurely. “So even if there were nothing else unique about different persons, their free will could introduce an essential individuality into their lives.” (Duncan, C., & Machan, T. R. (2005). Libertarianism for and against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.)
Compatibilism is most likely to be correct to me, because I actually believe in some determinism, but not all, because if I am a complete determinist, I think that sort of life is pessimistic. And while I believe in that part of determinism, I also believe in and insist on retaining my free will. My belief in life is an old Chinese proverb, “Do one’s level best and leave the rest to God’s will.” I believe this proverb explains the definition of Compatibilism in my mind very well. You can think that this is still determinism, because ultimately, we can’t change what will happen, and our free will seems like a comfort to ourselves. But I think there is a big difference between the two.
A real determinist should be pessimistic, so many determinists themselves do not have a good life, and their job needs lucky ingredients to succeed. I don’t want to be a determinist. I even think it’s a luxury to be a determinist. Because I can’t convince myself to be a person who can safely escape moral responsibility if I make a mistake. In my opinion, it is very comfortable to be a determinist, because in many cases there is no need to bear moral and psychological pressure. I still hope that my free will can make me change what I’ve been through, even if it’s just a little change. That would give me courage, and when I make a mistake, I can accept the cost of the mistake because the outcome of the matter has been changed by my free will. And when I succeed, I can also celebrate for myself. What makes it impossible for me to give up my free will is that it is very important. Its significance is to enlighten everyone, let us know what our behavior is affected by social and cultural factors, which is the pursuit of real self, so that we can get real freedom.
Freedom of belief is not the freedom of belief to follow one’s will, but the boundaries of belief to pursue truth constantly, eliminating the constraints of congenital and secular traditions, and making every decision of life simply with one’s own rationality and truth. I believe it’s very important to keep my free will. Because denial of free will gives one the ultimate reason to do bad things at will. Believing in free will is a better choice. After all, believing in human conscience will prompt us to abide by ethics, and vice versa will relax our demands on ourselves.
Many people think that free will is an illusion, and determinism is the truth and law of the universe. I have no objection to that. And I think it is because we have free will that we have meaning and soul as human beings. Animals live on the earth like us. They are more dominated by determinism than we are. Lions are born destined to prey on almost all animals, and cheetahs are born destined to run fast. It is because of free will that human beings have freedom and rights as human beings, and everyone is equal on this point. This is the spiritual difference between human beings and animals, which does not conflict with determinism and can still coexist. There are many examples in life to prove that free will and determinism are compatible. For example, earthquakes cannot be solved by human beings. They exist objectively and do not change with our will. And a person in the earthquake will face many choices, he can help more people escape or rescue a buried person around him, this is the role that his free will in a determinism destined play.
