Why hard determinism is wrong

If human actions are not determined by physics or chemistry, what besides free will could determine them? Also by Michael Egnor: Can mere products of nature have free will? Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? Is free will a dangerous myth? John Bell — Contributors Jonathan Bartlett William A. People who commit immoral actions Hitler, for example are usually punished whereas those who commit moral good actions such as Mother Teresa are often applauded for their efforts.

Yet, if determinism were true, punishing or applauding behavior would be essentially pointless because they are predetermined. In this case, Hitler was destined to sentence millions of people to death and Mother Teresa was determined to help the poor. According to determinism, Hitler had no control; he was born immoral.

Once again, I think most people would say yes, but this creates its own problems. Is it moral to punish someone who is predetermined to act in a certain way? Personally, I believe that determinism does not work well with other topics such as morality, so I am inclined to believe in indeterminism or self-forming actions. I believe both of these theories provide humans with the freedom to choose how they want to act.

You had no "free will" to decide whether or not to post this question. And you're "destined" to be convinced by this philosophical argument or not to be convinced. That does not mean that trying to better yourself will fail, instead it was already destined to be that you would try.

It was also destined whether it would be a successful attempt or not. Similarly, hard determinism does not state that people cannot be convinced to better themselves or be affected by law, by culture, etc.

Instead it means that you, for example, are predetermined to try and convince someone to better themselves Just like I'm writing this answer ; and whether it will work or not is also already determined. We should try or don't try for the same reasons as you would under a non-deterministic world. The premise of the question is flawed. The truth value of determinism does not change anything. If you think that people should try to better themselves in a non-deterministic world for whatever reasons, then the same reasons would apply to the deterministic world.

If you don't think people should try in a non-deterministic world for whatever reasons, then the same arguments would apply in a deterministic world.

However, contrary to what we think we are doing, if we assume that we live in a deterministic world then that trying must be an illusion. If we can make that choice, then the belief in a deterministic world has a defeater. That is, being confronted with that choice should make us strongly doubt that we are living in a deterministic world. Given the above we can flip that question around and ask why should we believe we live in a deterministic world? We will never be sure we are correct, but there is enough doubt to reject determinism.

So instead of assuming determinism is true, assume that it is not true and consider what the implications would be given that new assumption. There simply is no other way to deliberate. People may sincerely think they believe in determinism, but they act otherwise, and must act otherwise, every time they deliberate.

The great American philosopher Charles Pierce argued that a belief that cannot be consistently acted on cannot be true. Part of the fallen human condition inclines us to shirk our moral responsibility and accept that everything is predetermined, whether by God, the gods, fate, or blind chance. Various forms of determinism have been prevalent in most primitive religions, in much ancient philosophy, in most forms of Islam and even, most surprisingly, in much traditional….

He even quotes Greg extensively. From the…. Is God a bad father? Greg explores the intricacies and nuances of prayer.