Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Humans are a social species, which has both positive and negative consequences for society

 Part 1

Humans are a social species and as such have developed highly advanced capacities to socialize. Humanity has evolved in such a way that it is capable of ensuring that it is able to not only promote its interests, but also those of other species across the planet. Thus, human beings have risen from being prey for other species, to being the apex predator of the planet, and this situation has come about mainly because of their ability to socialize. Socialization has allowed for the establishment of a scenario within which humanity is better able to communicate with one another to such an extent that they have made great achievements. However, while this may be the case, it is essential to note that humanity, because of its ability to socialize, has also shown a capacity for destruction that is unprecedented in the history of the world. Not only have humans developed some of the worst weapons to fight one another, such as nuclear and biological weapons, they have also undertaken courses of action that can only be considered self-destructive, as seen in the manner through which climate change and its resulting effects are not being taken seriously. This paper makes an evaluation of the claim that humans are a social species that have both positive and negative consequences for society.

One of the most fundamental characteristics that mark humanity is their need and ability to socialize. This species seems to have been built to attain socialization, and this can be seen in the manner through which humans will constantly seek out other humans not only for companionship, but also to attain a sense of community (Hardman, 2009). Humans seem to only be able to thrive when they are with other humans, meaning that they cannot attain their full potential without the company of others of their species. It is pertinent to note that because of this characteristic, humans have also been able to establish themselves into societies; a factor that cannot be underestimated. This is because humanity has, through socialization and the establishment of societies, been able to secure for itself a large part of the world. Societies are what makes humans one of the most unique species on the planet because they not only provide these individuals with an environment within which they feel safe, but they also ensure that these individuals are better able to master their environment and establish unique communities. Thus, socialization has allowed humanity to thrive in all environments across the world, from the mildest to the harshest climates. The need and ability to socialize has also allowed for the establishment of an environment within which humans have been able to thrive in a manner that has yet to be achieved by any other species. Socialization can be considered responsible for the establishment of human civilization and the manner through which these civilizations have been able to develop and grow in their uniqueness.

Additionally, the ability of humans to socialize has also established their capacity to help one another. It has allowed members of this species to develop societies that can be considered avenues of mutual assistance. Societies allow individuals within them a place within which they can support one another, as seen through how different talents are brought together for mutual benefit. The specialization in different tasks that is prevalent in society is an aspect of socialization because human beings within such societies are able to make use of their unique talents to advance the course of their communities (Hardman, 2009). Furthermore, in modern society, as the gap between the rich and poor has widened, there has developed attempts by some of those that are wealthier to provide support to the poorer ones through a diversity of philanthropic initiatives. Also, in certain communities, such as those that have Islam as the official religion, individuals that are well off are obligated to support their poorer counterparts as a means of making sure that all individuals have their basic needs fulfilled. Humans, therefore, are a species that because of their ability to socialize, have developed a sense of empathy towards one another. Empathy is a characteristic that is most observed in humans, which shows that despite the considerable differences between the environments in which they live, it remains paramount. It is for this reason that humans are the species that stays with their young for the longest period because the latter are not only helpless at birth, but human parents will often invest considerable time and effort into ensuring that their children grow up in a safe environment. The latter characteristic is one that has allowed humanity to establish strong bonds of community that has ensured the species continues to thrive against all odds.

However, despite the latter being the case, humans, because of their being a social species, also has the capacity to cause great harm to one another. This can be seen through the wars that have taken place throughout human history. Most of the wars or conflicts that have taken place are between human communities as they compete because of pride due to their ethnicity or over resources (Hardman, 2009). Consequently, the human ability to socialize, which has allowed for the establishment of communities, has also led to these communities viewing others as rivals. Conflict is a part of human nature, and this has become prevalent, especially when one considers how this species has established communities with distinct identities. Fighting over resources has been a factor of human existence since the beginning of societies, and it has resulted in the deaths of uncountable individuals. Furthermore, in the process of these conflicts, some human communities have shown a great capacity for violence, as they have undertaken to not only conquer their weaker neighbors, but also exterminate them through genocidal acts. This can be seen in the case of such major events of the modern world as the genocides that took place during the Yugoslav Wars and the Rwanda genocide in the 1990s, among many others throughout human history. The capacity of humanity to cause harm to others is born out of the idea that their community is superior to others, and this was the justification for the European powers colonizing other parts of the world during the age of empires. The colonization process in most cases was undertaken violently, to such an extent that in some parts of the world, the native communities became extinct.

Moreover, the human capacity to cause harm can be seen through the harm it has caused to the environment. The latter can be considered to have also come about because of humans being a social species. The rapid growth of human societies and urban areas created a demand for goods and services that could no longer be sustained through subsistence, hence the development of industrialization and the mass production involved in the provision of these products. Consequently, the continued demand for resources and products has created a situation where considerable harm has been caused to the environment through the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Adams, 2020). The urge to increase human economic output is a driving force in today's globe. This is a process that encompasses both the consumption of commodities and their way of production, and it frequently overlooks the need to promote environmental concerns (Adams, 2020). As a result of this condition, without concern for human beings' living environment, it is becoming increasingly impossible to ensure that it is protected from harm. Human activity is putting significant strain on the planet's natural functioning. This is a critical topic because it entails a scenario in which the varied ecosystems present on Earth may be unable to sustain future generations.

Therefore, it is essential to make sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where it is possible to bring about the creation of initiatives where humans are able to change for the better. This process requires that humanity learn to work together hand in hand as a means of not only preventing causing harm to one another, but also to the environment. The human ability to socialize can therefore be brought to the fore in order to promote the development of strong initiatives aimed at ensuring the prevention of its harmful effects. For example, the issue of preserving diverse ecosystems for the benefit of future generations cannot be taken for granted, and there is an urgent need to promote an effective way of mitigating this problem (Adams, 2020). The latter is an urgent issue which requires cooperation from all sectors of human society in order to be effective. Additionally, humans have the international institutions necessary to ensure that the effects of conflict and climate change are mitigated effectively in order to bring about lasting solutions to these problems. Also, ecologically sustainable behavior patterns are a pertinent means of making sure that there is the achievement of the goal of making all humans responsible for their actions towards the environment. This change in culture, from one dominated by consumerism to one that is environmentally conscious, has the potential of playing an important role in not only bringing about a greater level of sustainability with a diversity of ecosystems intact, but it also allows for a reduction or even elimination of the social inequality that is prevalent in modern society.

In conclusion, humans as a social species are capable of causing both positive and negative consequences for society. They have the capacity to ensure that not only is it possible to achieve great things through working together, but also establishing frameworks of mutual protection and support. However, while the latter may be the case, it is also necessary to consider that humans as a social species cause significant destruction as seen through the senseless violence towards one another during conflicts, and the undertaking of activities that are harmful to the environment. The latter have become matters of serious concern in the modern world to such an extent that there are calls for action to be taken. There is the need to promote the idea that humans have to take advantage of their ability to socialize in order to undertake actions to bring about behavior patterns that ensure environmental sustainability and an end to conflicts with one another.

Part 2

One of the most significant factors concerning the modern world is that conspiracy theories have become more prevalent. This has developed to such an extent that it has to be taken seriously in order for there to be effective means of preventing it from spreading. For most of the human population, conspiracy theories might be difficult to take seriously to such an extent that when individuals hear them, they are more likely to ignore them than to accept them as fact (Byford, 2011). The belief that there are secret masterminds behind events and that there are major cover ups on a global scale is actually a factor that is only chuckled over when heard. However, with the advent of social media, this has become a serious problem. It can be seen in the manner through which the students have readily accepted the belief that tracking devices have been put in their vehicles to monitor them and that the solution is to use their phones when driving. Such conspiracies and belief in them can be considered detrimental to the welfare of the students involved because it creates an environment of fear and risk taking that is in reality nothing to worry about. The recognition of the fact that this theory and others like it might be endangering the lives of students is enough to promote the need to advance initiatives to understand the reasons behind why students believe them. The latter is a challenge that needs to be established as a means of bringing about the promotion of a scenario where there are effective means of reversing their effects on the beliefs of the students involved and instead promote risk aversion behavior when they are driving.

One of the most significant factors that might lead the students to believe the abovementioned conspiracy theory is that they want to maintain control over their lives. This is especially the case where they feel that they do not have control and this sense requires that they take on actions that help them regain it. In this case, they are essentially becoming influenced by a form of bias that enforces their outlook of the world over those that are factual. The human mind has evolved to value consistency and regularity. As a result, when a great crisis occurs, whether locally or nationally, the unexpected unpredictability scares individuals to such an extent that they will want to get back to control. Consequently, these individuals will seek satisfactory explanations for what is happening, even if they are patently incorrect (Byford, 2011). Conspiracy theories appear to supply the answers that these individuals seek. The latter might prove a challenge because it allows individuals the belief in something that makes them comfortable and in control. It reduces their capacity to think beyond the theories that have been presented to them; instead creating a scenario where they are placed in a position of great vulnerability. It is this vulnerability that leads to the problem mentioned; namely driving while on the phone. Most of the information concerning this theory comes from social media, meaning that the students have to be prevented from viewing such sites. This can be done through the school essentially reporting the site and its contents to government regulators so that further action can be taken.

However, this is only the first step, the next one being to encourage group counseling sessions that will allow for the debunking of the conspiracy theories. This process will require that there is the identification of those individuals that believe in the conspiracy and play an active role in its spread. It is noteworthy that such individuals are attracted to the idea of the presence of a huge villain, which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of any conspiracy. Whatever the plot says, they will almost certainly lay the blame at the feet of an underground group that's pulling the strings of the world right under their noses. They can be real, like the government, or fictional, like the Illuminati, but they all play a vital role in the plot. Such beliefs are fueled because a strong belief that only a few people share such a lonely experience (Byford, 2011). Humans are social creatures by nature, and most people do not want to feel like the recluses and outliers that conspiracy theorists sometimes portray. Certainly the internet has solved this dilemma, for better or for worse, as there are now hundreds of social networks where like-minded conspiracy theorists can communicate, discuss their theories and have their beliefs verified by others.

Therefore, there is need to target those students that feel isolated and are therefore susceptible to such theories. Those who are self-conscious are more inclined than others to believe in conspiracy theories, maybe to deflect blame for their failings. Powerlessness, anxiety, solitude, and alienation have all been connected to conspiracy ideas (Byford, 2011). Those who believe they are unimportant cogs in the political, economic, and social wheel are more likely to believe that malevolent forces are at work. Meanwhile, other techniques of addressing misinformation should not be abandoned because they contribute to its reduction. Debunking is exceedingly tough, yet it has the potential to be successful. Rather than just labeling something wrong or misleading, debunkers must explain why it is untrue, pointing attention to deception methods and presenting evidence. It may be more beneficial to inform students about conspiracy ideas ahead of time. It can operate as a preventative measure against disinformation. This strategy alerts individuals to the possibility of disinformation before they believe it. Addressing the students' psychological needs may amplify these impacts. This may make conspiracy theories and other falsehoods less appealing, as well as increase overall well-being. Education disproves conspiracy theories by developing critical thinking and empowering individuals. Other approaches might foster a sense of shared identity, enhancing emotions of belonging and significance. There should be an emphasis on solidarity within the student body and making sure that there is the advancement of means through which students are encouraged to make use of the institution’s counseling services. This will not only combat the effects of loneliness and anxiety that makes students vulnerable to conspiracy theories, but will further enhance their ability to resist the temptation of believing conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Adams, M. (2020) Anthropocene psychology: Being human in a more-than-human world.   Routledge.

Byford, J. (2011) Conspiracy theories: A critical introduction.   Springer.

Hardman, D. (2009) Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives.   John Wiley & Sons.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

The Philosophy of Free Will

One of the biggest philosophical problems concerning free will is the attempt to create a level of reconciliation between freedom and the determinism that seeks to promote the idea of cause and effect. This is especially the case considering that the latter promotes the idea that the events that take place in the world are all a part of a great causal chain that cannot be broken. Determinists believe that there is no such freedom and that instead; all events that take place in the world are predetermined by nature or a divine presence. Compatibilists, on the other hand, define freedom as being influenced not only by previous events, but also by the free will of individuals which also have an influence on the actions that they are likely to take in their own lives. As a result, compatibilists are of the opinion that determinism through the will of individuals ensures that they are able to take moral responsibility for their actions. Additionally, the libertarian perspective is one that states that the will of individuals is free as long as it is not determined by previous events; allowing for alternative choices to be made despite the presence of the same pre-existing conditions. In this paper, there will be an attempt to understand free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility.
One of the most prominent aspects of Smilansky’s concept of freedom is that he seems to go against determinism by proposing that individuals in society, such as criminals, have to undergo a lot of suffering for actions that were beyond their control (Smilansky 492). This is a highly significant observation because it is a direct challenge against the concept of determinism that proposes that all events that take place have been pre-determined. Smilansky seems to propose that incompatibilists such as Pereboom tend to dismiss the aspects of life that are beyond the control of human beings and instead focus mainly on their own actions. Therefore, there is the proposal that those actions that individuals take that go against the norms of their societies should not be treated with the harsh punishments that they end up receiving. This is because the actions that these individuals take are often predetermined by past events. The suffering that they have to undergo as a result of the punishments that they receive is unjust since they do not allow for an understanding of events being out of their control. There should be a deep appreciation of situations outside the control of individuals to ensure that there are less punitive attitudes in society that can in turn significantly reduce the toll that is often taken by the legal systems that have been set up to establish order. Thus, since actions are ultimately out of the control of individuals as a result of past events, it is important to make sure that individual actions are treated with the same justification; allowing for an understanding of the manner through which conditions outside their control can affect the lives of individuals.
Smilansky further states that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control (Smilansky 492). As a consequence, the actions of individuals that are appreciated from a compatibilist point of view is not based on their achievements, but on luck; meaning that the individual himself is inconsequential. Without the appreciation of the individual, the concept of free will comes into question because the individual seems to have no choice but to follow the path that has been determined for him by past events. Without free will and the appreciation for the individual, the compatibilist perspective, according to Smilansky, is one that fails to appreciate the manner through which society ends up promoting such vices as injustice and arbitrariness. In a direct challenge to the compatibilist perspective, Smilansky promotes the ideas propagated by the neo-compatibilist appreciation for individuals (Smilansky 496). He considers this appreciation not to be shallow and instead, it is a means through which there can be an acceptance that the capacity to understand the actions of individuals is not possible. This capacity does not exist and instead, individuals in society are not able to make sure that they determine their own future; meaning that the concept of the free will is a fiction and should not be taken at face value. It is morally outrageous to base the motivations of the actions of individuals on the aspects concerning their natures that are predetermined and instead, it is essential that there should be an appreciation that these aspects do not exist. As a consequence, the various characteristics that are displayed by individuals are self-originated; meaning that it is essential for the actions that these individuals take be determined from the perspective of these individuals rather than as some pre-determined event. This is an opinion that is corroborated by Pereboom, who points out that knowing that the actions of individuals are ultimately pre-determined does not necessarily mean that their moral responsibilities are erased (Pereboom 478). On the contrary, the ability of individuals to make decisions concerning their own lives and actions have to be appreciated, even though this notion might go against the traditional concepts of the predetermination of events.
Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will (Pereboom 479). This is especially the case considering that all of the actions that individuals take have been predetermined and that despite their best efforts, it is likely that their destinies have already been set. However, there are instances where individuals have the ability to exercise their free will because despite their actions being predetermined, individuals have a certain capacity aimed at bringing about an understanding of the consequences of their actions and making a decision concerning the best way to approach these actions. While this may be the case, individuals do not have absolute free will and there are cases where their actions end up being determined by the conditions taking place in their environment in such a way that shows that they are not masters of their own destinies and that there are some aspects of their lives that are not absolutely under their control. Therefore, free will seems to be incompatible with determinism because the latter is a concept that is based on the belief on the absolute lack of control of individuals over their lives, while free will is one that promotes the idea that individuals have complete control over their own destinies. Free will has no place in a concept that seeks to promote the idea that all agents in the world have no will of their own and are instead controlled by those aspects of nature that predetermine events and their outcomes. As a result, the belief in the free will of individuals is based on the falsity of determinism because it is the only way through which there can be acceptance that agents have free will and that they can control their own destinies without any interference from outside forces. On the other hand, determinism is based on the absolute denial of free will because the latter goes against all of its principles which consider outside forces to be of greater importance in influencing events that take place.
Free will can be considered to be an illusion that is propagated by members of society in order to make sure that there is the achievement of a certain agenda. This is especially the case considering that the ideas concerning free will have been especially prominent in the contemporary world to such an extent that the richest states are increasingly promoting ideas concerning it to other countries in the globe. However, the main purpose of propagating this idea is not because of any significant concern about the welfare of their fellow human beings, but instead, it has been based on the need to promote a globalized western culture that can enhance the latter’s economic strength. Free will is an illusion because individuals in society tend to be significantly restrained by laws that ensure that they are compliant with whatever authority is in power at a given time. The advancement of this concept is, therefore, not straightforward because there is a failure to recognize that the ability of individuals to determine their own fate is highly limited. Other factors of nature as well as the society around them have a more significant influence on the lives of individuals because these forces are vastly superior to human beings and what they represent. Therefore, the idea of free will, which is built on the assumption that individuals have a choice when it comes to some of their actions, is not realistic because it does not put into consideration the aspects of nature that are more powerful in determining the fate of individuals that the choices that they make. All the choices that are made by individuals tend to be highly influenced by their environment to such an extent that it is only after an assessment of their relationship to the latter that they are able to make a decision concerning the next step that they should take towards bringing about the achievement of their desired results. The illusion of free will is, consequentially, a means through which individuals in society are able to feel secure rather than a tangible reality.
Dispelling the illusion of free will would have the effect of bringing about an end to society as it currently is because it would bring to the fore the reality that individuals are not necessarily in control of their destinies. Instead, a situation would develop where it is nearly impossible for individuals to live in a secure way since they would not feel like they were in control of their futures. Being at the mercy of external forces in the ancient world was one of the reasons behind the human creation of religion as a means of explaining the occurrences taking place in the natural environment that also had a direct effect on them. The result was that it provided with relief even in situations where they came to attribute their lives and these occurrences to divine beings. However, as they came to feel secure in their communities and in a sedentary life, the fear of the natural environment seems to have waned; to be replaced with the belief that they could determine their own destinies. This belief has remained prevalent to the contemporary world among a majority of the global population to such an extent that to reveal that free will is only an illusion would possibly bring about an end to society as it is currently. The result would be that society would end up reacting in a way that seeks to promote the continued illusion of free will in order to prevent itself from disintegrating. Accepting the truth concerning the lack of free will would be extremely difficult especially considering that this concept has been the mainstay of society for a long time and has brought about a situation where individuals feel secure in their environment as well as their long-held beliefs concerning the realities of their lives. Thus, the denial of free will would bring in a situation where the belief in naturalism becomes prevalent because it promotes the belief that all events that take place in the world are beyond human control and that they take place because they have been preset in order to make sure that a certain purpose is fulfilled.
Because naturalism denies that individuals have free will, the ideas that it propagates tend to be nearly completely ignored since this information could prove to be too dangerous. To find out that free will is an illusion has the potential of bringing about an end to the moral standards and norms that have guided society for many years and could instead lead to a situation where it is difficult for individuals to remain loyal to the current social order. The disillusionment with the concept of free will could end up significantly altering the social landscape and could lead to chaos as individuals seek to promote their self-interest at all costs. The rules that have helped govern society would end up being disregarded because individuals would come to the realization that they are of no use since their destinies have already been predetermined by forces greater than themselves. The reality of the illusion of free will is probably only recognized by a few individuals in society and these find it necessary to keep it from the rest because such a revelation would bring about an end to order and let in anarchy. The vast majority have to be misled so that they do not come to contest the very aspects of society that hold them together and instead give in to their baser instincts. The self-confidence and belief in their own superiority that has held human society together for thousands of years could be brought to an end if free will were revealed to be an illusion; meaning that the continued denial of the truth would be essential for the continued survival of society.
Finding out that there is no free will could, therefore, be considered to be the end of society because individuals would likely end up being more individualistic in their perception of the world. This is especially considering that incompatibilists believe that free will is incompatible with determinism; meaning that there are forces that are greater than individuals which determine the course of their lives. Such concepts as moral responsibility could come to an end because individuals would come to the realization that the need not follow moral codes since to do so would be useless. The knowledge that actions are predetermined by past events rather than the decisions that are made by individuals in the contemporary world has the potential of leading to a change in behavior in such a way that the zeal to live and the joys that are derived from it would come to an end. Instead, the actions associated with everyday life could be brought to an end in such a way that there is little motivation among individuals to make sure that they seek to improve their lives for the better.
In conclusion, the discussion above has sought to develop an understanding of free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility. It has shown Smilansky’s opinion that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control. Additionally, Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will. Therefore, both of these authors feel that the concept of free will is an illusion since it does no factor in the belief that there are forces which predetermine the destinies of all the agents in the world.


Works Cited
Pereboom, Derk. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Smilansky, Saul. Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centrality of Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.