MODULE FOUR: THE HUMAN PERSON IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT

This module explains the interplay between humans and their environments. Allows students to demonstrate
the virtues of prudence and frugality towards his/her environment
This Module includes:
Lesson 1: The will: Its Existence and Nature
Lesson 2: The unity of man and nature
MAN IN THE REALM OF NATURE
By Spirkin, Alexander. Dialectical Materialism
The unity of man and nature.
Human beings live in the realm of nature, they are constantly surrounded by it and interact with it. The most
intimate part of nature in relation to man is the biosphere, the thin envelope embracing the earth, its soil
cover, and everything else that is alive. Our environment, although outside us, has within us not only its
image, as something both actually and imaginatively reflected, but also its material energy and information
channels and processes. This presence of nature in an ideal, materialized, energy and information form in
man's Self is so organic that when these external natural principles disappear, man himself disappears from
life. If we lose nature's image, we lose our life.
Everything, from each separate cell of a living organism to the organism as a whole, generates bioenergy.
Just as the bioenergy of the separate cell goes beyond its boundaries, so the bioenergy of the organs and the
organism as a whole extends beyond their boundaries, forming a luminous aura. As the ancient acupuncture
therapists intuitively established, bioenergy and bio information move along special channels (meridians)
forming a complex structure, in which all the components of the living whole interact both with themselves
and with the external world. Energy-information interactions are a vital dimension of any living system,
including that of man as the highest stage in the hierarchy of the structures of existence known to science.
Man is constantly aware of the influence of nature in the form of the air he breathes, the water he drinks, the
food he eats, and the flow of energy and information. And many of his troubles are a response to the natural
processes and changes in the weather, intensified irradiation of cosmic energy, and the magnetic storms that
rage around the earth. In short, we are connected with nature by "blood" ties and we cannot live outside
nature. During their temporary departures from Earth spacemen take with them a bit of the biosphere.
Nowhere does nature affect humanity in exactly the same way. Its influence varies. Depending on where
human beings happen to be on the earth's surface, it assigns them varying quantities of light, warmth, water,
precipitation, flora and fauna. Human history offers any number of examples of how environmental
conditions and the relief of our planet have promoted or retarded human development.

At any given moment, a person comes under the influence of both subterranean processes and the cosmic
environment. In a very subtle way he reflects in himself, in his functions the slightest oscillations occurring in
nature. Electromagnetic radiations alone from the sun and stars may be broken down into a large number of
categories, which are distinguishable from one another by their wavelength, the quantity of energy they emit,
their power of penetration, and the good or harm they may do us. During the periods of peak solar activity,
we observe a deterioration in the health of people suffering from high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis or
infarction of the myocardium. Disturbances occur in the nervous system and the blood vessels are more liable
to suffer from spasms. At such times, the number of road accidents increases, and so on. It has been noted that
there is dependence between any weakening in the Earth's magnetic field and acceleration of growth, and
vice versa, growth is retarded when the magnetic field becomes stronger. The corpuscular, radioactive
irradiations, cosmic dust, and gas molecules which fill all universal space are also powerful creators and
regulators of human existence in biological life. The universe is in a state of dynamic balance and is constantly
receiving various forms of energy. Some forms are on the increase or decrease, while others experience
periodic fluctuations. Each of us is a sensitive resonator, a kind of echo of the energy flows of the universe. So
it would be quite wrong to regard only the energy of the sun as the source of life on earth and humanity as its
highest manifestation. The energy of distant cosmic bodies, such as the stars and the nebulae, have a
tremendous influence on the life of man as an organism. For this reason, our organisms adjust their existence
and development to these flows of external energy. The human organism has developed receptors that utilize
this energy or protect themselves from it, if it is harmful. It may be said, if we think of human beings as a high-
grade biological substance, that they are accumulators of intense energy drives of the whole universe. We are
only a response to the vibrations of the elemental forces of outer space, which bring us into unity with their
oscillations. Every beat of the organic pulse of our existence is coordinated with the pulse of the cosmic heart.
Cosmic rhythms exert a substantial influence on the energy processes in the human organism, which also has
its own rhythmic beat.
Man's influence on nature.
Man is not only a dweller in nature, he also transforms it. From the very beginning of his existence, and with
increasing intensity human society has adapted environing nature and made all kinds of incursions into it. An
enormous amount of human labor has been spent on transforming nature. Humanity converts nature's
wealth into the means of the cultural, historical life of society. Man has subdued and disciplined electricity
and compelled it to serve the interests of society. Not only has man transferred various species of plants and
animals to different climatic conditions; he has also changed the shape and climate of his habitation and
transformed plants and animals. If we were to strip the geographical environment of the properties created
by the labor of many generations, contemporary society would be unable to exist in such primeval conditions.
Man and nature interact dialectically in such a way that, as society develops, man tends to become less
dependent on nature directly, while indirectly his dependence grows. This is understandable. While he is
getting to know more and more about nature, and on this basis transforming it, man's power over nature
progressively increases, but in the same process, man comes into more and more extensive and profound
contact with nature, bringing into the sphere of his activity growing quantities of matter, energy and
information.

On the plane of the historical development of man-nature relations we may define certain stages. The first is
that of the complete dependence of man on nature. Our distant ancestors floundered amid the immensity of
natural formations and lived in fear of nature's menacing and destructive forces. Very often they were unable
to obtain the merest necessities of subsistence. However, despite their imperfect tools, they worked together
stubbornly, collectively, and were able to attain results. This process of struggle between man and the
elements was contradictory and frequently ended in tragedy. Nature also changed its face through interaction
with man. Forests were destroyed and the area of arable land increased. Nature with its elemental forces was
regarded as something hostile to man. The forest, for example, was something wild and menacing and people
tried to force it to retreat. This was all done in the name of civilization, which meant the places where man
had made his home, where the earth was cultivated, where the forest had been cut down. But as time goes on
the interaction between man and nature is characterized by accelerated subjugation of nature, the taming of
its elemental forces. The subjugating power of the implements of labor begins to approach that of natural
forces. Mankind becomes increasingly concerned with the question of where and how to obtain irreplaceable
natural resources for the needs of production. Science and man's practical transforming activity have made
humanity aware of the enormous geologic al role played by the industrial transformation of earth.
At present the interaction between man and nature is determined by the fact that in addition to the two
factors of change in the biosphere that have been operating for millions of yearsthe biogenetic and the
abiogeneticthere has been added yet another factor which is acquiring decisive significancethe
technogenetic. As a result, the previous dynamic balance between man and nature and between nature and
society as a whole, has shown ominous signs of breaking down. The problem of the so-called replaceable
resources of the biosphere has become particularly acute. It is getting more and more difficult to satisfy the
needs of human beings and society even for such a substance, for example, as fresh water. The problem of
eliminating industrial waste is also becoming increasingly complex. The threat of a global ecological crisis
hangs over humanity like the sword of Damocles. His keen awareness of this fact has led man to pose the
question of switching from the irresponsible destructive and polluting subjugation of nature to a reasonable
harmonious interaction in the "technology-man-biosphere" system. Whereas nature once frightened us and
made us tremble with her mysterious vastness and the uncontrollable energy of its elemental forces, it now
frightens us with its limitations and a new-found fragility, the delicacy of its plastic mechanisms. We are faced
quite uncompromisingly with the problem of how to stop, or at least moderate, the destructive effect of
technology on nature. In socialist societies the problem is being solved on a planned basis, but under
capitalism spontaneous forces still operate that despoil nature's riches.
Unforeseen paradoxes have arisen in the man-nature relationship. One of them is the paradox of saturation.
For millions of years the results of man's influence on nature were relatively insignificant. The biosphere
loyally served man as a source of the means of subsistence and a reservoir for the products of his life activity.
The contradiction between these vital principles was eliminated by the fact that the relatively modest scale of
human productive activity allowed nature to assimilate the waste from labor processes. But as time went on,
the growing volume of waste and its increasingly harmful properties destroyed this balance. The human
feedback into nature became increasingly disharmonized. Human activity at various times has involved a
good deal of irrational behavior. Labor, which started as a specifically human means of rational survival in the
environment, now damages the biosphere on an increasing scale and on the boomerang principleaffecting
man himself, his bodily and mental organization. Under the influence of uncoordinated production processes
affecting the biosphere, the chemical properties of water, air, the soil, flora and fauna have acquired a
negative shift. Experts maintain that 60 per cent of the pollution in the atmosphere, and the most toxic, comes
from motor transport, 20 per cent from power stations, and 20 per cent from other types of industry.

It is possible that the changes in the chemical properties of the biosphere can be somehow buffered or even
halted, but the changes in the basic physical parameters of the environment are even more dangerous and
they may turn out to be uncontrollable. We know that man can exist only in a certain range of temperature
and at a certain level of radiation and electromagnetic and sound-wave intensity, that is to say, amid the
physical influences that come to us from the atmosphere, from outer space and from the depths of the earth,
to which we have adapted in the course of the whole history of the development of human life. From the
beginning man has existed in the biosphere, a complex system whose components are the atmosphere, the
hydrosphere, the phytosphere, the radiation sphere, the thermosphere, the phonosphere, and so on. All these
spheres are and must remain in a natural state of balance. Any excessive upsetting of this balance must be to
the detriment not only of normal existence but of any existence at all, even human vegetation. If humanity
does not succeed in preventing damage to the biosphere, we run the risk of encountering the paradox
ofreplacement, when the higher plants and animals may be ousted by the lower. As we know, many insects,
bacteria, and lichens are, thanks to their relatively simple structure, extremely flexible in adapting to
powerful chemical and even physical factors, such as radiation. Mutating under the influence of an
unfavorable environment, they continue their modified existence. Man, on the other hand, "nature's crown",
because of the exceptional complexity of his bodily and mental organization and the miraculous subtlety and
fragility of his genetic mechanism may, when faced with a relatively small change in the chemical and physical
factors of the environment, either produce unviable progeny or even perish altogether.
Another possible result of harmful influences on the environment is that the productivity of the biosphere
may substantially decline. Already we observe unfavorable shifts in the great system of the universe: Sun-
plants-animals-plants. Much more carbon dioxide is being produced on earth than plants can assimilate.
Various chemical preparations (herbicides, antibiotics, etc.) affect the intensity of photosynthesis, that most
subtle mechanism for the accumulation of the vital energy required by the universal torch of life. Thus, not
only progress but even human life itself depends on whether humanity can resolve the paradoxes in the
ecological situation that have arisen today.
Modern technology is distinguished by an ever increasing abundance of produced and used synthetic goods.
Hundreds of thousands of synthetic materials are being made. People increasingly cover their bodies from
head to foot in nylon, Capron and other synthetic, glittering fabrics that are obviously not good for them.
Young people may hardly feel this and pay more attention to appearance than to health. But they become
more aware of this harmful influence as they grow older. As time goes on the synthetic output of production
turns into waste, and then substances that in their original form were not very toxic are transformed in the
cycle of natural processes into aggressive agents. One gets the impression that human beings are working
harder and harder to organize bits of synthetic reality by disorganizing the systems evolved by nature.
Emphasizing man's hostility to naturea hostility armed with the vast achievements of modern technology
both natural scientists and philosophers are today asking themselves the pessimistic question: Is it not the
fatal mission of man to be for nature what cancer is for man himself? Perhaps man's destruction of the
biosphere is inevitable?
One would like to think that the limited capacities of nature do not signify a fatal limitation of civilization
itself. The irrational principle, which once permeated human nature, still exists in human behavioral
mechanisms, as can be seen, for instance, in the unpredictable consequences of their individual and concerted
efforts. Much in human activity goes beyond the limits of the predictable, even when it is humanely oriented.
The man-nature relation, the crisis of the ecological situation is a global problem. Its solution lies in the plane
of rational and humane, that is to say, wise organization, both of production itself and care for mother nature,
not just by individuals, enterprises or countries, but by all humanity, linked with a clear awareness of our
planetary responsibility for the ecological consequences of a civilization that has reached a state of crisis. One
of the ways to deal with the crisis situation in the "man-nature" system is to use such resources as solar
energy, the power of winds, the riches of the seas and oceans and other, as yet unknown natural forces of the
universe. At one time in his evolution man was a gatherer. He used the ready-made gifts of nature. This was
how human existence began. Perhaps even today it would be wise to resort to this method, but on a quite
different level, of course. The human being cannot restrict himself to gathering, any more than he could in
primitive times. But such a shift in attitude could at least abate the destructive and polluting principle in
civilization.
As cybernetic methods and principles in the various fields of knowledge and practice develop, control theory
has been widely applied in many spheres. Its aim is to ensure the optimal function of a system. A humanely
oriented mind should be able to transfer the idea of optimality and harmony to ecological phenomena.
In their production activity people are mastering more and more new materials and learning to replace one
with another. In the long term this could lead, as the alchemists once believed, to production on the principle
of everything out of everything. Moreover, our planet has an active balanceit loses less substance in the
upper layers of the atmosphere than it receives from outer space. It would therefore appear that the amount
of substance available as a whole will not place any radical limitation on material production.
Life, including human life, is not only metabolism; it is also a form of energy transformation and movement
developed to degrees of subtlety that are as yet beyond our comprehension. Every cell, every organ and
organism as a whole is a crucial arena of the struggle between entropic (dispersing) and anti-entropic
processes, and the biosphere represents the constant victory of life, the triumph of the anti-entropic principle
in the existence of the living.
Losses of living energy from our organism are constantly compensated by various forms of energy flowing
from the vast expanses of the universe. We need not simply energy, such as electromagnetic radiation or heat,
but radiant energy of the finest quality. The struggle for the existence of living creatures, including man, is a
struggle not so much for the elements that compose his organismthey are abundantly available in the air,
water and undergroundnot for solar energy in its direct, electromagnetic radiation, but for the energy that
is captured by the mechanisms of photosynthesis and exists in the form of organic, particularly plant
structures. When we consume vegetable food, we take the energy of nature particularly that of the sun, at first
hand, so to speak. But plants are also the food of herbivorous animals, and when we eat meat, we take this
energy at second hand.
So, the biosphere is not a chaotic conglomeration of natural phenomena and formations. By a seemingly
objective logic everything is taken into account and everything mutually adapts with the same obedience to
proportion and harmony that we discern in the harmonious motion of the heavenly bodies or the integral
paintings of the great masters. With a sense of wonder we see revealed before us a picture of the magnificent
universe, a universe whose separate parts are interconnected by the subtlest threads of kinship, forming the
harmonious whole which the ancient philosophers surmised when they viewed the world with their
integrating, intuitively perceptive gaze. We are part of the ecological environment and it is a part of the
universe. It contains myriads of stars and the nearest of them is the Sun. The Sun is the master of Earth. We
are, in a certain sense, its children. Not for nothing did the rich imagination on whose wings mankind flies
ever further and higher in the orbit of civilization portray the Sun in ancient legends as the highest deity.
But to return to our theme, the bitter truth is that those human actions which violate the laws of nature, the
harmony of the biosphere, threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may turn out to be universal. How apt
then are the words of ancient Oriental wisdom: live closer to nature, my friends, and its eternal laws will
protect you!

MODULE FIVE: MAN AND FREEDOM

This module explains the perennial debate on freedom versus determinism among philosophers and
psychologists. Arguments in favor of the existence of free will are substantial, but the arguments advocated
by determinism are likewise presented to for to better understand both philosophies.
This Module includes:
Lesson 1: The will: Its Existence and Nature
Lesson 2: Freedom of the Will (Part I)
Lesson 3: Freedom of the Will (Part II)
Lesson 4: Arguments for Determinism
LESSON 1
 THE WILL: ITS EXISTENCE AND NATURE
After studying this lesson, you should be able to:
1. understand that the will really exist,
2. comprehend the nature of the will, and
3. Know the object of the will.

Lesson 1 Display
The will, in philosophy and psychology, is a term used to describe the faculty of mind that is alleged to
stimulate motivation of purposeful activity. The concept has been variously interpreted by philosophers,
some accepting the will as a personal faculty or function (for example, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and
Kant) and other seeing it as the externalized result of the interaction of conflicting elements (for example,
Spinoza, Leibniz, and Hume). Still others describe the will as the manifestation of personality (for example,
Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer). The reality of individual will is denied altogether by the doctrine of
determinism. Modern psychology considers the concept of the will as unscientific (as in Skinner) and has
looked to other factors such as unconscious motivation or psychological influence to explain human actions.
However, the existence of the will can be demonstrated philosophically and confirmed by data derived from
everyday experience. For example, every act of real self-control is an implicit manifestation of the will. In such
an act we are conscious of the fact that some tendency in us is held in check by a higher tendency. That higher
tendency is the will.
Against this argument the following objection can be raised. Animals also exercise self-control. Thus, a hungry
but well-trained dog will not take the meat he sees on the table.
This, however, is not real self-control. The sight of the meat has aroused in the dog two conflicting tendencies;
hunger and fear. The fear is the product of his experience. Maybe on previous occasion, his grabbing the meat
has been followed by some very disagreeable sensation, like a spank, a whip or any punishment. The memory
of these painful sensations is now associated with the perception of meat-on-the-table.
Another empirical confirmation of the existence of the will derives from the fact that we sometimes will an
object which is repulsive to our body and sense tendencies; for instance, when we swallow a bitter medicine,
or submit to a painful operation or tooth extraction. In all these cases, we are not attracted by a material,
sensible good but some good presented by our intellect.
Another proof for the existence of the will is the phenomenon of voluntary attention. Voluntary attention is
distinct from spontaneous attention. Spontaneous attention is present in animals; it is the concentration of
the senses and of the mind on some object which appeals to one of the lower drives. In voluntary attention we
concentrate our senses and our mind on some object which does not spontaneously interest us. We
concentrate because we want to concentrate, and we want to concentrate because our intellect tells us that it
is good to concentrate. Compare the attention you pay to an interesting movie with that given to a dull but
important lecture.
So the existence of the will cannot be denied. But what is the very nature of the will? If a will exists, then what
is it? What is its object? Let us now turn to a particular excerpt in John Kavanaughs article entitled Human
Freedom for a clearer understanding of what the will really is.

Human Freedom
Free choices: A Metaphysical Analysis of the Will
The Will is an intellectual tendency, or a tendency toward an intellectually known good. It is different from
sense an appetite in that it is not chained down by the immediacy of the sensed object. I know not only this
object as good, but I know all objects, all subjects, all that is, us good in some respectat least insofar as it
exists. Anything then, because it can be seen as good, might be the object of my willwhether it is a good
steak, a good person, a good feeling, or a good action. It is precisely because a thing or action can be seen as
having good aspects that my will goes to it or ends toward it. The very reason that I find myself having a
tendency toward an object in the first place is because I sense it or know it as having good things about it. It is
the good quality of the thing by which the will is drawn or moved.

We might say, the, that the will is naturally determined to seek the good; and if I were presented with an
unmitigated, simple, unqualified good, my will would certainly be necessitated toward it. With this in mind
that all things are good in some way and that my will tends spontaneously toward them because they are
somehow goodI recognize nevertheless that my tending is always concerned with an existential, real
world in which good are precisely limited, finite, conditioned, interrelated, and ordered to other goods. If I am
about to undertake a course of action, it is often evident that a number of possibilitiesall of which have
good and bad points to recommend and discredit themare presented to me as alternatives. Since none of
these alternatives goods can be called unconditional or simple goods, and since none of them can exhaust the
total meaning of good in which they all participate, none of them can force my will to a necessary choice, This
is our reasoning:
a. the will is a tendency toward an intellectually known good; thus it is precisely the good aspect of the object
which attracts my will,
b. the only object which could necessitate my will would be a good that is unconditionally good in an
unqualified sense;
c. in many of my choices, however, the goods from which I select as the the good for me in this decision are
all conditioned, limited and qualified;
d. Therefore, freedom of choice can be operative in my behavior.

We might note that if there should be a case in which a particular good appeared to be absolutedue to lack
of knowledge or an excess of fear and emotion- then freedom of choice would be inoperable, Similarly we
might ask ourselves: if the will tends toward the known good all the time, does that mean we never choose
evil? If we reflect upon moments of deliberation and choice, it becomes rather clear that this is not the case. It
is precisely in deliberation upon and selection of a particular good among many-in relation to our knowledge
of who we are and what our potentialities may bethat moral failure occurs. I can freely choose a particular
good-for-me-now which I consciously know is not in continuity with my identity and potentialities.
Amid these reflections, however, we must not forget that we also experience our freedom as being severely
limited and modified at times. As we have seen, knowledge is of primary importance. We cannot have self-
possession if we never arrive at an understanding of the self and its meaning. We cannot choose if we are not
aware of option of different possibilities, of various alternatives. We could neither choose nor love that which
we do not in some way know. We might even have experienced people who seemingly never have known
goodness, nobility, kindness or sympathy and consequently were never able to exercise their freedom with
respect to these values. Moreover, there are ample data that point to the importance of the environment,
conditioning, deprivation, habit, emotion, natural preferences, and ones own history in the formation of the
projects and choices. All these factors are undeniable, and they must be weighed with the factors that point to
mans freedom.

Consequently, reflection upon my experience leads me to conclude at least initially the there are forces which
can shape and influence my present and future behavior. Nonetheless, there are also data that cannot be
ignored which point to the conclusion that determining forces do not totally destroy my ability to take
possession of myself. As long as I can question, as long as I can achieve a distance from my environment and
from immediate needs, and as long as I can know various values and goods as limited and conditional, I can
take hold of my life and my situation and I can say something about it.
In conclusion I might say, first, that I feel free. This is an important consideration. But feeling free does not
necessarily make it so. The feeling of freedom does not indicate, however, that such an experience is quite
primary and fundamental to our behavior. Second and more important is that there are levels of human
behavior which, upon reflection and analysis, indicate freedom as self possession and freedom of choice.
These levels of behavior, moreover, are not just feelings. They are the incontrovertible evidence of
questioning, self-reflection, distance, and the awareness of goods-precisely as conditional. If these actions did
not exist, I could not be doing what I am doing right now.
LESSON 2
FREEDOM OF THE WILL (PART 1)
After studying this lesson, you should be able to:
1. Differentiate the various kinds of freedom,
2. Understand some important arguments for the freedom of the Will.
Freedom in general means the absence of resistant. There are different kinds of restraint and freedom.
Physical freedom is the absence of physical restraint. When a prisoner is released from prison, he is
physically free, since he is no longer restrained by the prison walls. Moral freedom is the absence of moral
restraint, of an obligation, of a law. Thus, in this country we are morally free to criticize the government.
Psychological freedom is the absence of psychological restraint. Psychological restraint consists in drives
which force a subject to perform them. Thus, a hungry, untrained dog is forced by its hunger to eat the food,
which is set before it, a scared cat cannot help running away. These animals are not forced into their actions
by any external power or moral obligation; they possess no psychological freedom. A hungry man, on the
contrary, can still refrain from taking food, and a soldier frightened by heavy bombardment can choose to
stay at his post. Men possess psychological freedom.
Psychological freedom is also called freedom of choice, since it allows the free subject to choose between
different courses of action. It has been defined as that attribute of the will whereby it can act or not act
(freedom of exercise), can act in this way or in that way (freedom of specification).
In the whole history of philosophy, a great deal of debate has been done on whether or not our will is free. In
this lesson, we will consider two arguments demonstrating the freedom of the will.

1. ARGUMENT FROM COMMON CONSENT the great majority of men believe that their will is free. This
conviction is of the utmost practical importance for the whole of human life. Therefore, if there is order in the
world, the majority of mankind cannot be wrong in this belief. Hence, the will is free. a. If all those studied the
question theoretically arrived at deterministic positions, we should indeed have to follow them, but even
among professional philosophers the majority uphold that the will is free.
b. Whether one professes determinism or the freedom of the will ha a great practical influence on life. Why
should a man try to control himself if he is convinced that cannot do it anyway?
c. Far from shunning moral effort, great numbers of determinists make a consistent effort to be decent and
honest persons. It is difficult to see how there is no contradiction between the doctrines they profess and the
kind of life they try to lead.

The judgment of common sense is that there is freedom of the will. That man on the street is sure that he is
free and that his neighbor is free. Only among the sophisticated does determinism (the doctrine that there is
no freedom of the will) find acceptance, and even among them only in theory, not in practice. Besides this, we
can make a number of observations.
2. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT we have said that most people naturally hold that the will is free.
Why do they cling to that conviction? Because they are directly and indirectly aware of their freedom in the
very act of making a free decision; they are indirectly aware of its because of the many instances of the
behavior which can only be explained by admitting the freedom of the will. Direct awareness of the freedom
of our decisions: In this argument, we claim that at the very moment in which we are exercising our freedom
we are aware of it. We do not claim, on the other hand, that we are directly aware of being able to choose
freely before the choices is made or after it has been made.

The point is that we are not aware of our power of choosing freely except in the very act of exercising that
power. We are aware of the possible courses of action; we may know from past experience that when no
great difficulties lie in the way we are capable of choosing any of these courses. But we are not conscious of
our power of free choice as such, except while we are exercising it.
Once we have reached a decision, we continue to have the impression that, although we have chosen A, we
could as well have selected B or C. Therefore, we do not claim that we have an awareness of our freedom of
choice before exercising it or after having exercised it. But we possess that awareness while we are choosing,
while we are deciding to take A rather than B. At that moment, we are conscious that we are selecting A
without coercion, without constant; we feel that we are not being impelled by blind impulses that we are not
being manipulated like a puppet.
2.2. Indirect Awareness of the freedom of will Many facts of our daily life, of which we are clearly aware, can
be explained only if are free. We deliberated before taking a decision, we weigh the reasons for or against it,
and we regret some of our past choices. This surely implies that we should, and by inference could, have acted
differently. We admire, praise and reward virtuous actions and manifest through our attitude the implicit
belief that the person who performed them was not forced to do so. If Hitler was not acting freely, when he
decreed the wholesale extermination of the Jews, his actions were just one more natural disaster, and there
was no reason for any indignation about it.
In most countries, the administration of justice is based on a belief in the freedom of at least some human
actions. Most courts try to find out the degree of deliberation (that is, of freedom) with which a crime was
committed. And the punishment is generally proportional to the degree of freedom. If man is not free, there is
no reason for punishing a first degree murder more severely than the killing of a pedestrian in an
automobile accident.
If I were determined, I would know nothing about it. Animals are unfree, and totally unaware of it. In order to
be aware of space, I must, in some way, stand outside space. I can know time only because something in me is
above time. I can speak of determinism only because I am not totally in its grip.
1. THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT If there is no freedom, there is no moral responsibility no virtue, no merit, no
moral obligation, no duty, no morality. The necessary connection between freedom and the spiritual realities
is quite obvious and is demonstrated in Ethics.

This is a strong argument because the sense of duty and the belief in morality and moral obligation come
naturally to man and even those who deny their existence in theory live in practice as if they admitted it.
Kant, a major German Philosopher, who claimed that the existence of freedom was not demonstrated by
theoretical reason, nevertheless was conviction from the fact of duty, which he considered to be immediately
evident to the practical reason.
Among the first principles, which are virtually inborn to the human intellect, there is at least one that refers to
the moral order. The good must be done and evil avoided. This fundamental dictate of conscience, this
moral ought, is virtually inborn every human mind. It is the basis of all moral obligation and it implies
freedom of the will since obligation is nothing but the necessary of doing something freely.
No social life is possible without obligations and duties. In our relations with other people we are aware of
certain obligations we have in regard to them, and we are even aware of their obligations toward us.
Therefore we are continually taking it for granted that man is free.

2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT This argument can be presented in a philosophical context. It

presupposes the two following philosophical statements: Every kind of knowledge evokes a corresponding
kind of striving. This follows from the fact that knowledge and striving are the two fundamental functions or
aspects of being.

Immaterial striving is free at least in this sense that it is not determined from outside. Determinism derives
from matter.

If these two principles are admitted, the argument from the freedom of the will it easy to set up:
There is in man an immaterial kind of knowledge. Hence, there must also be him an immaterial kind if
striving. And since immaterial striving is free, there is in man a free kind of activity, which is called the will.
Still the question remains. Why the human will is free?
Why the human will is free?
Mans freedom does not consist merely in being able to do what he wants to do. Many Animals can do what
they want to do. But is not within their power to decide what they want to do. Man, on the other hand, is able
not only to do what he ants to do also decide that he wants to do one thing or another.
We must show, therefore, the fact that and the reason why the human person does not will the things he wills
out of necessary; the fact that and the reason why he will then freely. To explain clearly, we have to proceed
in a number of stages:
1. Man wills a thing necessarily as soon as he decided: This is good.

The will is a faculty whose object is the good. But the will does not know its own object, it is not a cognitive
faculty; it meets its object through the intellect. Hence, as soon as the intellect judges: This is good, the will
is presented with its object and must necessarily embrace it.
2. Man decides necessarily that a thing is good when it conforms to his standard of goodness.

The person judges the goodness of things not arbitrarily about according to a certain norm or standard. When
an object fulfills the requirements of that standard, it is necessarily called good.
3. Mans standard of goodness is goodness as such.

The will is guided by the intellect. The intellect knows being as such, desires truth as such. The object of the
will has the same extension as that of the intellect which guides it it is good as such. The good as such means
the perfect good, without any restriction, imperfection or limitation.
4. No object on earth comes up to mans standard of goodness.
On earth we never meet the perfect good. Many things are good, but they are not absolutely good, they all
have their limitations, their defects.

5. Hence, there is not a single object on earth with regard to which man is forced to decide. This is good.
There is not a single object in relation to which we are not free.
In other words: We are free to will or not will, because we always say: this is good but not perfectly good.
Our intellect provides us with the idea of the perfect good because it is the guide, which our will follows. The
relation of the will to the intellect is analogous to the relation between the engine and the steering wheel of a
car. Movement is initiated by the engine (will) but the direction of the movement derives from the action of
the wheel (intellect).
It follows that our freedom is ultimately based on the immateriality of our will and our intellect. We are free
because we are spirits.
LESSON 4
ARGUMENTS FOR DETERMINISM
After studying this lesson, you should be able to:
1. Understand the various forms of determinism,
2. Learn the various factors that affect and influence our actions, and
3. Know the arguments for determinism

Lesson 4 Display
Though some philosophers have argued their own position about freedom, the other side, which is a
contradictory argument, should also be presented, that e. i. DETERMINISM. Many modern philosophers and
psychologists who deny the freedom of the will are called determinists and their system is known as
determinism. They claim that in spite of some contrary appearances, man is forced or determined in all
his actions.

Determinism is the philosophical concept that every event, including human cognition and behavior,
decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences or by number of forces
which compel us to act as we do. Like the some of the natural laws of science which have the form: If X occurs
then Y occurs. If a patient is sick, there must be a reason for such condition to happen which certainly
explains everything. Thus, if we know the initial condition (X occurs) and the law (If X then Y) we can
explain/predict the occurrence of Y. Determinism is the contention that all physical (and mental) events and
experiences of man in the universe can be incorporated under such laws. This is NOT the view that we can
actually predict everything. Our ignorance of facts is enormous and we certainly do not know all the laws and
statistical regularities which describe such events and experiences that we have. Thus if something occurred,
there must be a reason for it and such reason itself is the argument being emphasized and highlighted by the
determinism.
In its toughest argument, Hard Determinism is the theory that because Determinism is true, no one is free;
no one has free will (or choice) and no one truly acts freely. Determinism, as a philosophical doctrine, is
absolutely contradictory to the belief that there is such a thing as freedom of the will. Determinism asserts
that there is no free will that we do things, not because we decide to do these, but because these were
determined to us by a number of forces which compelled us to act as we do. We could not have done
otherwise. We cannot do these things we did.
In an argumentative or syllogistic form, philosophers who advocate determinism would put it this way:
1. Determinism is true: all events are caused.
2. Therefore, all human desires and choices are caused.
3. For an action to be free it would have to be the result of a choice, desire or act of will which had no cause.
That is, free WILL means that the Will or choosing "mechanism" initiates the action.
4. Therefore, there can be no free choices or free will.

According to the Hard Determinists, freedom is present when a free act or choice would be one which is
uncaused, or happened independent of causes, or completely disconnected from preceding events. The "Will"
or person doing the choosing and acting would have to be a primum mobile (first mover), a new beginning, or
an original creative source of activity. But, this cannot be, it is argued, since surely actions are caused by
wants and desires, wants and desires flow from our character, and our character is formed by environment
and heredity. Thus, every actions or events have sources which are external to us and are not within our
control; a proof itself for determinism and not of freedom.
All materialists and sensists are necessarily determinists. For them man is a purely material being. But
matters is perfectly determined and possess no freedom. When we know a material system perfectly, we can
foresee and predict all further activities. Thus an astronomer predicts with great accuracy all future eclipses.
The volcanologist can predict with a certain degree of accuracy when and where an earthquake will happen.
The materialist claim that if we knew the material system called MAN perfectly, and if we are aware of all
the influences working on him, we should be able to predict all his future activities; we could write his
biography on the day of his birth.
Determinism can be seen in different forms or arguments. The following arguments will portray the general
perspectives within a deterministic view of life.

1. The Argument from Biology

Biological determinism maintains that physiological factors exert a compelling influence in mans life. We do
what we do because of the kind of body we have inherited from our parents, because we are born that way.
The biological determinists emphasize especially the role of the endocrine glands and the genes in
determining our conduct. We may sometimes wonder that we act in a certain manner but we end up realizing
that hereditary factors have something to do with it. Thus, we do act not because it is an act of free will but
because of the biological factors that make us and determine us to do so.
2. The Law of Causation
The arguments from of determinism make it evident that it is anchored with the law of causation. The law of
causation is one which no man would care to deny; it simply and undeniably asserts that every effect has its
cause. No one indeed can think otherwise. Causation, in fact, as Kant showed, is one of the ways in which we
must think; it is, as he says, an a priori form of thought; we did not learn from experience to think causally,
but rather by thinking causally we help to constitute experience. Mans

decision or actions then do have their causal explanation but such cause is of physical or material aspect and
not of non-physical or immaterial, the free will, which the concept of freedom asserts
3. The Argument from Science's Philosophy of Nature
A philosophy of nature is a general theory explanatory of all the occurrences of nature. Now the ideal of
scientific explanation in physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, and everywhere is mechanical. Events do not
happen because anybody or any will wants them to happen; they happen because they have to happen; they
happen because they must. And it is the business of science to find this necessary connection between the
occurrences of nature. The universe, by this hypothesis, whole and part, is governed by the action of
mechanical law. The reign of law is universal. Man is a very small creature upon a small earth, which is itself a
comparatively small planet in one of the smaller solar systems of an indefinitely large number of solar
systems which partially fill infinite space. The universe is a physical mechanism in which law rules, and man
is but a least part of this universal machine. How then can he do otherwise than he does do? A single free-will
act would introduce caprice, whim, chance, into a universe whose actions are so mechanically determined
that an omniscient observer of the present could predict infallibly all futurity. Thus, man is so called bound
and determined to act by his own nature to act and is not free.
4. The Argument from Ethics
The interests of ethics, of such matters as duty, obligation, conscience, reward, and blame, are peculiarly
bound up with the doctrine of freedom, in the eyes of many. Yet there is also an argument from ethics for
determinism. It runs as follows: a man's character determines his acts, he is responsible, for the act is his
own; he committed it because, being the man he could not have done otherwise. If his act were an effect of
free will, no one could count upon him, he would be an irresponsible agent. Just because he is bound by his
character, he is dependable. If his acts are good, he is to be congratulated on his character, not praised
overmuch; if his acts are bad, he is to be pitied for his character, not blamed overmuch. He is rewarded, not
because he could have done otherwise, but as a tribute to the stability of his character and as a stimulus to
continued right action. He is punished, again not because he need not have done wrong, but to help him do
right next time. All our instruction, reproof, and correction of others presupposes they may be determined by
such influences. Thus, the whole outfit of ethical categories may be read in deterministic terms, and indeed
are so read by many ethical thinkers and writers, beginning with Socrates, who held that right ideas
determine right conduct.

5. The Argument from Theology

The argument from theology for determinism runs somewhat as follows: God is omniscient, He therefore
knows what I am going to do, there is therefore nothing for me to do except what He knows I am going to do,
there is consequently but one reality, not two possibilities awaiting me in the future; therefore I am not free
to do otherwise than I must do when the time comes. Thus the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God is held to
exclude the freedom of man's choice. But to deny that God has foreknowledge would be derogatory to His
dignity.

6. The Argument from Psycho-social

Psycho-social determinists emphasize a combination of psychological and social factors as explaining human
conduct. On the psychological side, they point to the different drives and tendencies which impel the
individual; on the social side, to the continual pressure of the environment words, customs, fashions,
propaganda, but most of all in education, in particular, education during the first few years of life . Man as
part of the social group is not freely deciding but merely following.
The psychologist determinists insist upon the compulsive influence of the motives and presented to our mind,
asserting that when two motives are opposed to each other, the stronger necessarily prevails. In this view, the
will is like a balance, which necessarily tips toward the heavier weight. Thus, our will necessarily chooses the
greater good and follows the stronger motive.
Let us expand our discussion on the psycho-social type of determinism for this is the popular kind of
determinism today. We assume that the actions of people will be explicable in terms of the circumstances or
context in which they are performed, and in terms of the character or nature of the actors and the purposes
that they have in mind. Their actions we should certainly sat are determined by them, but their characters,
their purposes, their circumstances, are the products of their heredity, their education, their environment, the
whole of their HISTORY.
The philosophical doctrine has been given scientific evidential support by the famous Harvard psychologist,
B.F. Skinner. In his book, Walden Two, he stresses:
The causes for human action all lie outside the man and that these causes are necessitating. Mans behavior
is shaped and determined by external forces and stimuli whether they are familiar or cultural sanction, verbal
or non-verbal reinforcement, or complex system of reward and punishment. I have nothing to say about the
course of action which I will take.
In another part of Walden Two, he says
Give me the specifications and Ill give you the man. Let us control the lives of our children and see what can
make of them.
Skinner did not these pronouncements without any scientific support. The power of conditioning has been
recognized. The stimulus-response model of Pavlov is generally regarded among scientist as very convincing.
Reinforcements, both positive and negative, can shape an individual or group reaction. Forms of reward and
punishments have already been adapted for their utility. In other words, this phenomenon of behavior
control is occurring right now in our society by means of governmental, educational and propagandistic
control techniques, through in a less systematic manner.

To summarize, it would be good touch on John Kavanaughs reflection of his own experience, which
correspond to Skinners position in Walden Two and Science and Human Behavior. Kavanaugh enumerates:

a. I have genetic, biological and physical structures, which influence my behavior. They are part of the total
me which is involved in choosing.

b. I have environmental structures, which are part of me my early life and psychological development, the
culture, national and ecclesiastical framework that I find myself situated in.

c. I am keenly aware of external forces and demands, which impinge upon me, sometimes-creating needs
even valves.

Before us and our discussion of determinism, it would be best to study a particular except in B.F. Skinners
book entitled Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Let us take a look at the last chapter of this book:
WHAT IS MAN?
As a science of behavior adopts the strategy of physics and biology the autonomous agent to the
environmentthe environment in which the species evolved and in which the behavior of the individual is
shaped and maintained, replaces which behavior has traditionally been an attribute. That a mans behavior
owes something to antecedent events and that the environment is a more promising point of attack then
mans himself has long been recognized. It was Robert Owen, according to Trevelyan, who first clearly grasped
and taught that environment makes character and that environment is under human control or, as Gilbert
Saldea wrote, that man is a creature of circumstance, that if you changed the environments of thirty little
Hottentots and thirty little aristocratic English children. The aristocratic would become Hottentots, for all
practical purposes, and the Hottentots little conservatives.
Autonomous man is a devise used to explain what we cannot explain in any other way. He has been
constructed from our ignorance, and as our understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed
vanishes. Science does not dehumanize man, and it must do so if it is to prevent the abolition of the human
species. To man as man we readily say good riddance. Only be dispossessing him can we turn from the
inferred to the observed, from the miraculous to the natural, from the inaccessible to the manipulable.
It is often said that in doing so we must treat that man who survives as a mere animal. Animal is a pejorative
term, but only because man has been made spuriously honorific. Krutch has argued that whereas the
traditional view supports Hamlets exclamation, How like a god! Pavlov, the behavioral scientist,
emphasized How like a dog! But that was a step forward. A god is the archetypal pattern of an explanatory
fiction, of a miracle-working mind, of the metaphysical. Man is such more than a dog, but like a dog he is
within range of a scientific analysis.
.Man is not made into a machine by analyzing his behavior in mechanical terms. Early theories of
behavior, as we have seen, represented man as a push-pull automation, close to the nineteenth century notion
of a machine, but progress has been made. Man is a machine in the sense that he is a complex system
behaving, in lawful ways, but the complexity is extraordinary. His capacities to adjust to contingencies of
reinforcement will perhaps be eventually simulated by machines, but this has not yet been done, and the
living system thus simulated will remain unique in other ways.
Is man then abolished? Certainly not as a species or as an individual achiever. It is the autonomous
inner man who is abolished, and that is a step forward. But does not man then become merely a victim or
passive observer of what is happening to him? He is indeed controlled by his environment, but we must
remember hat it is an environment largely of his own making. The evolution of a culture is a gigantic exercise
in self-control. It is often said that a scientific view of man leads to wounded vanity, a sense of hopelessness,
and nostalgia. But no theory changes what is a theory about; man remains what he has always been. And a
new theory may change what can be done with its subject matter. A scientific view of man offers exciting
possibilities. We have not yet seen what can make of man.