The determinist argues that there are no alternative choices. What will be, will be; que sera, sera. But those who argue for free will will say that there is a certain amount of 'loose' play in the universe. Future is not really determined by the present. How to we resolve the dispute?
For the pragmatist truth is man-made. Truth is that which works. Truth must lead to successful action; it must fit into the schemes of life. So to resolve the dispute of free will vs determinism, a pragmatist asks which position would work better for life.
Thus came a pragmatist and applied her usual method: which one fits in life better? She asked the implication of a determinist view. As expected the reply came that all events are determined. The pragmatist surmised that such view provides no room for 'choices'. In life criminals are punished; and good people are rewarded. But without the option of 'choices' such judgment are meaningless; even wrong. So according to determinist view events in life like 'regrets', 'applauds', etc are all rendered superflous, surmised the pragmatist. But such implication of a determinist view does not help the world become a better place.
Choices imply that there are at least two alternatives and one can select this or that. And this is something we face in life everyday. What clothes to wear; what time to sleep; when to shut one's mouth etc. But if choices are not there, the alternative position is to opt for a mechanical explanation like that of a programmed robot. But we have choices. And so determinist view does not fit into our real schemes of life. If we want to bring change into our lives and history embracing Free Will will pay more than Determinism. And so a pragmatist chooses Free Will over Determinism.
No comments:
Post a Comment