Freewill and determinism Issues and debates
The free will vs determinism is a debate between psychologists, on whether behaviour is
predetermined or if we have an active role in determining our behaviour. The freewill side
of the debate implies that, we are able to decide our behaviour and have moral
responsibility over our actions. An example of this is the Humanistic approach, where self-
determinism and freedom is possible to develop to become a better human being.
In contrast the determinism side of the debate suggests that our behaviour is determined by
internal or external forces beyond our control. There are five different aspects of
determinism, biological where genes are a direct influence, environmental where all
behaviour is caused by previous biological enforcers, psychic where innate drives are the
main influence and scientific determinism where causes and effect determine behaviour.
The biological approach adopts a hard determinist approach, as they believe that behaviour
is influenced by genetic and biological factors and we have no freedom. The social learning
theory takes a soft deterministic outlook, as researchers such as bandura accept that we are
free to choose but we have a limited number of options. Offering a compromise between
freewill and determinism.
A problem with both biological and environmental determinism is that neither are the sole
determining factor in behaviour. This can be seen through cases of identical twins as if one
twin has depression there is only a 40% chance the other will. Which suggests that genes
don’t entirely determine behaviour, and that another factor comes into play in determining
behaviour such as environmental determinism. Meaning that neither is the only factor in
determining behaviour.
An issue with freewill is that it has been argued that it is an illusion and an actually relative
concept. As being able to decide behaviour may not be freewill but an illusion. As
determining between two courses of action are determined by previous reinforcement. This
is suggested by behaviourist B.F Skinner, who said that people have a false sense of freewill
which is in fact determined by external circumstances. Proving that not all behaviour is
determined by just freewill.
A limitation of hard determinism is that it’s not compatible with our legal system. There
have been attempts in criminal cases in the US, for murderers to claim that their behaviour
was determined by aggressive tendencies and therefore should not be punished with the
death penalty. People claim that they were ‘born to kill’ due to a history is violence in their
families, but this is just considered an excuse. However, if this side was taken by the legal
system it would lead to the collapse of the criminal justice system and would allow
dangerous murderers to run wild.
The free will vs determinism is a debate between psychologists, on whether behaviour is
predetermined or if we have an active role in determining our behaviour. The freewill side
of the debate implies that, we are able to decide our behaviour and have moral
responsibility over our actions. An example of this is the Humanistic approach, where self-
determinism and freedom is possible to develop to become a better human being.
In contrast the determinism side of the debate suggests that our behaviour is determined by
internal or external forces beyond our control. There are five different aspects of
determinism, biological where genes are a direct influence, environmental where all
behaviour is caused by previous biological enforcers, psychic where innate drives are the
main influence and scientific determinism where causes and effect determine behaviour.
The biological approach adopts a hard determinist approach, as they believe that behaviour
is influenced by genetic and biological factors and we have no freedom. The social learning
theory takes a soft deterministic outlook, as researchers such as bandura accept that we are
free to choose but we have a limited number of options. Offering a compromise between
freewill and determinism.
A problem with both biological and environmental determinism is that neither are the sole
determining factor in behaviour. This can be seen through cases of identical twins as if one
twin has depression there is only a 40% chance the other will. Which suggests that genes
don’t entirely determine behaviour, and that another factor comes into play in determining
behaviour such as environmental determinism. Meaning that neither is the only factor in
determining behaviour.
An issue with freewill is that it has been argued that it is an illusion and an actually relative
concept. As being able to decide behaviour may not be freewill but an illusion. As
determining between two courses of action are determined by previous reinforcement. This
is suggested by behaviourist B.F Skinner, who said that people have a false sense of freewill
which is in fact determined by external circumstances. Proving that not all behaviour is
determined by just freewill.
A limitation of hard determinism is that it’s not compatible with our legal system. There
have been attempts in criminal cases in the US, for murderers to claim that their behaviour
was determined by aggressive tendencies and therefore should not be punished with the
death penalty. People claim that they were ‘born to kill’ due to a history is violence in their
families, but this is just considered an excuse. However, if this side was taken by the legal
system it would lead to the collapse of the criminal justice system and would allow
dangerous murderers to run wild.
