Determinism is the belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur. The future is causally determined by the past. True freedom requires control over the future but as our future is determined by the past, Determinist thinking nullifies the concept of free will. The physicalist Baron D’Holbach’s theory on Free Will further explores determinism as his theory is focussed on free will simply being an illusion as our will comes from our brain. In D’Holbach’s theory, he states that everything that is happening right now is the inevitable result of an unbroken chain of events as humans and our actions are bound by the physical world. Mental states are brain states so our actions are determined (the physical world is determined). Our life is unilinear and "we are matter in motion" so we have no control over our actions. Our human actions come from brain impulses (eg. they come from temperament, hormones, beliefs, desires) and these biological factors are physical so they are determined. These biological factors narrow down our action choices to one so even if we feel free, we are not. "We are just cogs in a machine, doing what we were always meant to do with no actual volition", even if we believe that we are acting upon a self-determined character, we are not because the character we form is made up of already-determined factors about us so our actions are still predetermined. We have no personal responsibility as we are not responsible for our determined actions due to our biology.
Like all other determinist theories, D’Holbach’s theory has several flaws when it comes to the idea of non-existent moral responsibility. Hard determinism is incompatible with moral standards and legal rulings in the world: if hard determinism is true, we have no free will so we are not responsible for any of our actions. However, people are held accountable for their actions in the real world (this is the basis for the entire judicial system) so hard determinism would mean that there would be no social order and there would be no process of serving justice to the populace. However, to further critique D’Holbach’s thinking, I will argue against his basic premise for his argument: I will be analysing his idea that mental states are brain states and that our will arises from our biochemical processes. This stance is essentially the same as the Identity Theory. If the mind is the same as the brain, how can we possess metaphysical phenomena (eg. thoughts/ideas) as these cannot be explained using biological and chemical processes. How can individualised experiences (Qualia) exist if we're all made up of the same objective things (we have nothing subjective about ourselves)? The mind or some analogous metaphysical must exist in order for us to have individualised experiences.
Critiques of the Physicalist approach to the Mind and Body issue:
1. If the mind does not exist, how are we perceiving anything and how are we understanding anything?
2. Thoughts/Ideas (non-physical mental phenomena) cannot be explained using biological and chemical processes
3. Qualia: how can individualised experiences exist if we're all made up of the same objective things (we have nothing subjective about ourselves)
Critiques of the Physicalist approach to the issue of the Essential Self:
1. We are seen as the same person even if we get amnesia and cannot remember any of our memories resulting in us having to, essentially, begin a new life because we have the same body
2. Life after death would not be possible --> cause problems for religions which do believe in life after death (some religions believe in life after death ie. catholicism with heaven and hell)
3. Our bodies are always constantly changing (37 thousand billion billion cellular reactions per second) and we have developed since childbirth; our cells are also changed over 7 years so do we become a new person every 7 years? (our cerebral cortexes develop as we become older so our intuition also changes)"