diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 37358-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 80567 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 37358-h/37358-h.htm | 4695 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 37358.txt | 3526 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 37358.zip | bin | 0 -> 75447 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
7 files changed, 8237 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/37358-h.zip b/37358-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8d7750 --- /dev/null +++ b/37358-h.zip diff --git a/37358-h/37358-h.htm b/37358-h/37358-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3008198 --- /dev/null +++ b/37358-h/37358-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4695 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + Determinism or Free-Will?, by Chapman Cohen. (a Project Gutenberg eBook) + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + +body { +margin-left:10%; +margin-right:10%; +} + +h1,h2 { +clear:both; +text-align:center; +} + +h1#first { +font-size:125%; +font-weight:400; +} + +h2 { +font-size:120%; +font-weight:400; +padding:2em 0 0.5em; +} + +p { +margin-bottom:.75em; +margin-top:.75em; +text-align:justify; +} + +table { +margin-left:auto; +margin-right:auto; +} + +p.ralign { +padding-right:2em; +text-align:right; +} + +div#tn { +background-color:#CFC; +border:solid #38610B 1px; +color:#000; +font-size:80%; +margin:4em; +padding:1em; +} + +span.pagenum { +color:gray; +font-size:small; +font-style:normal; +left:92%; +position:absolute; +text-align:right; +} + +.center { +text-align:center; +} + +.smcap { +font-variant:small-caps; +} + +.pad-l2 { +padding-left:2em; +} + +.pad-r2 { +padding-right:2em; +} + +.pad-tb2 { +padding-top:2em; +} + +.pad-t,.pad-tb { +padding-top:1em; +} + +.wee { +font-size:45%; +} + +.sm { +font-size:75%; +} + +.med { +font-size:110%; +} + +.lg { +font-size:125%; +} + +.xlg { +font-size:175%; +} + +div.footnotes { +background-color:#F2F2F2; +border:solid #A4A4A4 1px; +margin-top:3em; +padding:1em; +} + +div.footnote { +font-size:85%; +margin-left:10%; +margin-right:10%; +} + +div.footnote a { +text-decoration:none; +} + +div.footnote .label { +padding:8px; +} + +.fnanchor { +background-color:#F2F2F2; +font-size:.7em; +font-weight:400; +text-decoration:none; +vertical-align:super; +} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Determinism or Free-Will?, by Chapman Cohen + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Determinism or Free-Will? + +Author: Chapman Cohen + +Release Date: September 8, 2011 [EBook #37358] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? *** + + + + +Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, S.D., and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<h1 id="first" class="pad-t">DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL?</h1> + +<p class="center sm pad-tb2"> +<i>Printed and Published by</i><br /> +THE PIONEER PRESS<br /> +(<span class="smcap">G. W. Foote & Co., Ltd.</span>),<br /> +<i>61 Farringdon Street, London, E.C. 4.</i></p> + +<h1 class="pad-tb"><span class="pad-r2">Determinism</span><br /> +<span class="wee">OR</span><br /> +<span class="pad-l2">Free-Will?</span></h1> + +<p class="center med">BY<br /> +CHAPMAN COHEN.</p> + +<p class="center pad-tb"><b>New Edition. Revised and Enlarged.</b></p> + +<p class="center"><span class="sm smcap">London:</span><br /> +THE PIONEER PRESS,<br /> +<span class="sm"><span class="smcap">61 Farringdon Street</span>, E.C. 4.</span></p> + +<p class="center sm">1919.</p> + +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><td colspan="2" class="sm">CHAPTER</td><td align="right" class="sm">PAGE</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">I.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#QUESTION_STATED">The Question Stated</a></td><td align="right">9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">II.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#FREEDOM_AND_WILL">"Freedom" and "Will"</a></td><td align="right">23</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">III.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#CONSCIOUSNESS_DELIBERATION_CHOICE">Consciousness, Deliberation, and Choice</a></td> +<td align="right">36</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">IV.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#SOME_ALLEGED_CONSEQUENCES">Some Alleged Consequences of Determinism</a></td><td align="right">50</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">V.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#PROFESSOR_JAMES">Professor James on the "Dilemma of Determinism"</a></td> +<td align="right">63</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">VI.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#NATURE_IMPLICATIONS_RESPONSIBILITY">The Nature and Implications of Responsibility</a></td><td align="right">76</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">VII.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#DETERMINISM_CHARACTER">Determinism and Character</a></td><td align="right">92</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">VIII.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#PROBLEM_IN_DETERMINISM">A Problem in Determinism</a></td><td align="right">101</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">IX.—</td><td align="left" class="smcap"><a href="#ENVIRONMENT">Environment</a></td><td align="right">117</td></tr> +</table> + +<h2>PREFACE TO NEW EDITION.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> demand for a new edition of <cite>Determinism or +Free-Will</cite> is gratifying as affording evidence of +the existence of a public, apart from the class +catered for by more expensive publications, interested +in philosophic questions<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>. It was, indeed, in +the conviction that such a public existed that the +book was written. Capacity, in spite of a popular +impression to the contrary, has no very close +relation to cash, nor is interest in philosophic +questions indicated solely by the ability to spend +a half-guinea or guinea on a work that might well +have been published at three or four shillings. +There exists a fairly large public of sufficient +capacity and education intelligently to discuss the +deeper aspects of life, but which has neither time +nor patience to give to the study of bulky works +that so often leave a subject more obscure at the +end than it was at the beginning.</p> + +<p>Nor does there appear any adequate reason why +it should be otherwise. A sane philosophy must +base itself on the common things of life, and must +deal with the common experience of all men. The +man who cannot find material for philosophic study +by reflecting on those which are near at hand +is not likely to achieve success by travelling all over +the globe. He will only succeed in presenting to +his readers a more elaborately acquired and a more +expensively gained confusion. Nor is there any +reason why philosophy should be discussed only in +the jargon of the schools, except to keep it, like the +religious mysteries, the property of the initiated +few. We all talk philosophy, as we all talk prose, +and doubtless many are as surprised as was M. +Jourdain, when the fact is pointed out to them.</p> + +<p>So whatever merit this little work has is chiefly +due to the avoidance, so far as possible, of a +stereotyped phraseology, and to the elimination of +irrelevant matter that has gathered round the +subject. The present writer has long had the +conviction that the great need in the discussion of +ethical and psychological questions is their restatement +in the simplest possible terms. The most +difficult thing that faces the newcomer to these +questions is to find out what they are really all about. +Writer follows writer, each apparently more concerned +to discuss what others have said than to deal +with a straightforward discussion of the subject +itself. Imposing as this method may be, it is fatal +to enlightenment. For the longer the discussion +continues the farther away from the original +question it seems to get. One has heard of "The +Religion of Philosophy," and its acquisition of +obscurity in thought and prolixity in language seems +to have gone some distance towards earning the title.</p> + +<p>Being neither anxious to parade the extent of my +reading, nor greatly overawed by the large number +of eminent men who have written on the subject, I +decided that what was needed was a plain statement +of the problem itself. My concern, therefore, has +been to keep out all that has not a direct bearing +on the essential question, and only to deal with +other writers so far as a discussion of what they +say may help to make plain the point at issue. If +the result does not carry conviction it at least makes +clear the ground of disagreement. And that is +certainly something gained.</p> + +<p>Moreover, there is a real need for a clearing away +of all the verbal lumber that has been allowed to +gather round subjects concerning which intelligent +men and women will think even though they may +be unable to reach reliable or satisfactory conclusions. +And I have good grounds for believing that +so far this little work has achieved the purpose for +which it was written. If I may say it without being +accused of conceit, it has made the subject clear to +many who before found it incomprehensible. And, +really, philosophy would not be so very obscure, if +it were not for the philosophers. We may not +always be able to find answers to our questions, but +we ought always to understand what the questions +are about. That it is not always the case is largely +due to those who mistake obscurity for profundity, +and in their haste to rise from the ground lose +altogether their touch with the earth.</p> + +<p class="ralign">C. C.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">{9}</a></span></p> + +<p class="center xlg pad-t">DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL?</p> + +<h2><a name="QUESTION_STATED" id="QUESTION_STATED"></a> +I.<br /> +THE QUESTION STATED.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">At</span> the tail end of a lengthy series of writers, from +Augustine to Martineau, and from Spinoza to +William James, one might well be excused the +assumption that nothing new remains to be said +on so well-worn a topic as that of Free-Will. +Against this, however, lies the feeling that in the +case of any subject which continuously absorbs +attention some service to the cause of truth is +rendered by a re-statement of the problem in +contemporary language, with such modifications in +terminology as may be necessary, and with such +illustrations from current positive knowledge as +may serve to make the issue clear to a new +generation. In the course of time new words are +created, while old ones change their meanings and +implications. This results not only in the +terminology of a few generations back taking on +the character of a dead language to the average +contemporary reader, but may occasion the not +unusual spectacle of disputants using words with +such widely different meanings that even a clear +comprehension of the question at issue becomes +impossible.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">{10}</a></span> +So much may be assumed without directly +controverting or endorsing Professor Paulsen's +opinion that the "Free-Will problem is one which +arose under certain conditions and has disappeared +with the disappearance of those conditions;" or +the opposite opinion of Professor William James +that there is no other subject on which an inventive +genius has a better chance of breaking new ground. +If mankind—even educated mankind—were composed +of individuals whose brains functioned with +the accuracy of the most approved text-books of +logic, Professor Paulsen's opinion would be self-evidently +true. Granting that the conditions which +gave rise to the belief in Free-Will have disappeared, +the belief itself should have disappeared likewise. +Professor Paulsen's own case proves +that he is either wrong in thinking that these conditions +have disappeared, or in assuming that, this +being the case, the belief has also died out.</p> + +<p>The truth is that beliefs do not always, or even +usually, die with the conditions that gave them birth. +Society always has on hand a plentiful stock of +beliefs that are, like so many intellectual vagrants, +without visible means of support. Human history +would not present the clash and conflict of opinion +it does were it otherwise. Indeed, if a belief is in +possession its ejection is the most difficult of all +operations. Possession is here not merely nine points +of the law, it is often all the law that is +acknowledged. Beliefs once established acquire an +independent vitality of their own, and may defy +all destructive efforts for generations. One may, +therefore, agree with the first half of Professor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">{11}</a></span> +Paulsen's statement without endorsing the concluding +portion. The problem has not, so far as +the generality of civilized mankind is concerned, +disappeared. The originating conditions have gone, +but the belief remains, and its real nature and value +can only be rightly estimated by a mental reconstruction +of the conditions that gave it birth. As Spencer +has reminded us, the pedigree of a belief is as +important as is the pedigree of a horse. We cannot +be really certain whether a belief is with us because +of its social value, or because of sheer unreasoning +conservatism, until we know something of its +history. In any case we understand better both it +and the human nature that gives it hospitality by +knowing its ancestry. And of this truth no subject +could better offer an illustration than the one under +discussion.</p> + +<p>Reserving this point for a moment, let us ask, +"What is the essential issue between the believers in +Free-Will and the upholders of the doctrine of +Determinism?" One may put the Deterministic +position in a few words. Essentially it is a +thorough-going application of the principle of causation +to human nature. What Copernicus and Kepler +did for the world of astronomy, Determinism aims +at doing for the world of psychological phenomena. +Human nature, it asserts, is part and parcel of +nature as a whole, and bears to it the same relation +that a part does to the whole. When the Determinist +refers to the "Order of Nature" he includes all, +and asserts that an accurate analysis of human +nature will be found to exemplify the same principle +of causation that is seen to obtain elsewhere. True,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">{12}</a></span> +mental phenomena have laws of their own, as +chemistry and biology have their own peculiar laws, +but these are additional, not contradictory to other +natural laws. Any exception to this is apparent, +not real. Man's nature, physical, biological, +psychological, and sociological, is to be studied as +we study other natural phenomena, and the closer +our study the clearer the recognition that its manifestations +are dependent upon processes with which +no one dreams of associating the conception of +"freedom." Determinism asserts that if we knew +the quality and inclination of all the forces bearing +upon human nature, in the same way that we know +the forces determining the motions of a planet, then +the forecasting of conduct would become a mere +problem in moral mathematics. That we cannot do +this, nor may ever be able to do it, is due to the +enormous and ever-changing complexity of the +forces that determine conduct. But this ought not +to blind us to the general truth of the principle +involved. To some extent we do forecast human +conduct; that we cannot always do so, or cannot do +so completely, only proves weakness or ignorance. +The Determinist claims, therefore, that his view of +human nature is thoroughly scientific, and that he is +only applying here principles that have borne such +excellent fruit elsewhere; and, finally, that unless +this view of human nature be accepted the scientific +cultivation of character becomes an impossibility.</p> + +<p>So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for +the future it will be briefer and more convenient +to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does +not on his part deny the influence on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">{13}</a></span> +human organism of those forces on which the +Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any +of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever +furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of +human action. He affirms that after analysis has +done its utmost there remains an unexplained +residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the +methods of positive science. He denies that conduct—even +theoretically—admits of explanation and +prediction in the same way that explanation and prediction +apply to natural phenomena as a whole. It +is admitted that circumstances may influence +conduct, but only in the way that a cheque for five +pounds enables one to become possessed of a certain +quantity of bullion—provided the cheque is +honoured by the bank. So the "Will" may honour +or respond to certain circumstances or it may not. +In other words, the deterministic influence of +circumstances is contingent, not necessary. Circumstances +determine conduct only when a "free" +volition assents to their operation. So against the +proposition that conduct is ultimately the conditioned +expression of one aspect of the cosmic order, +there is the counter-proposition that intentional +action is the unconditioned expression of absolutely +free beings, and is what it is because of the selective +action of an undetermined will.</p> + +<p>Further, against all deterministic analysis the +Volitionist stubbornly opposes the testimony of +consciousness, and the necessity for the belief in +Free-Will as a moral postulate. Thus, even when the +deterministic analysis of an action—from its source +in some external stimuli, to the final neural discharge<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">{14}</a></span> +that secures its performance is complete, it is still +urged that no possible analysis can override man's +conviction of "freedom." The existence of this +conviction is, of course, indisputable, and it forms +the bed-rock of all forms of anti-determinism. But +the scientific or logical value of a conviction, as such, +is surely open to question. Equally strong convictions +were once held concerning the flatness of the +earth's surface, the existence of witches, and a +hundred and one other matters. Besides, a belief +or a conviction is not a basal fact in human nature, +it is the last stage of a process, and can therefore +prove nothing save the fact of its own existence. +Human nature at any stage of its existence is an +evolution from past human nature, and many prevalent +beliefs are as reminiscent in their character as our +rudimentary tails are reminiscent of a simian +ancestry. I hope later to make it clear that the much +talked of testimony of consciousness is quite +irrelevant to the question at issue; and also that the +assumed necessity for the conception of "freedom" +as a moral postulate is really due to a misconception +of both the nature of morality and of voluntary +action.</p> + +<p>Ultimately the question, as already indicated, +resolves itself into one of how far we are justified +in applying the principle of causation. The Determinist +denies any limit to its theoretical application. +The Volitionist insists on placing man in a distinct +and unique category. But this conception of causation +is in itself of the nature of a growth, and a +study of its development may well throw light on +the present question.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">{15}</a></span> +A conception of causation in some form or other +could hardly have been altogether absent from the +most primitive races of mankind. Some experiences +are so uniform, so persistent, and so universal that +they would inevitably be connected in terms of cause +and effect. Nevertheless, the primitive mind was so +dominated by volitional conception of nature that a +sense of necessary connection between events could +only have been of a weak character. Experience +may have shown that certain physical phenomena +succeeded each other in a certain order, but the +belief that these phenomena embodied the action of +supernormal conscious forces would break in upon +that sense of inevitability which is the very essence of +scientific causation. Modern thought fixes its attention +upon a given series of events and declines to go +further. With us the order is inevitable. With +primitive man the order, even when perceived, is +conditional upon the non-interference of assumed +supernormal intelligences. Each phenomenon, or +each group of phenomena, thus possesses to the +primitive mind precisely that quality of "freedom" +which is now claimed for the human will.</p> + +<p>How difficult is the task of establishing causal +connections between physical phenomena the whole +history of science bears witness. To establish causal +connections between external conditions and subjective +states, where the forces are more numerous and +immensely more complex in their combinations, is a +task of infinitely greater difficulty. Amongst +savages it would never be attempted. Feelings arise +without any traceable connection with surrounding +conditions, nor does a recurrence of the same exter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">{16}</a></span>nal +circumstances produce exactly the same result. +A circumstance that produces anger one day may +give rise to laughter on another occasion. Something +that produces a striking effect on one person leaves +another quite unaffected. Numerous feelings arise +in consciousness that have all the superficial signs +of being self-generated. The phenomena are too +diverse in character, and the connections too complex +and obscure, for uninstructed man to reach a deterministic +conclusion. The conclusion is inevitable; +man himself is the absolute cause of his own actions; +he is veritably master of his own fate, subject only +to the malign and magical influence of other extra-human +personalities.</p> + +<p>Primitive thinking about man is thus quite in line +with primitive thinking about other things. In a +way man's earliest philosophy of things is more +coherent and more rigorously logical than that of +modern times. The same principle is applied all +round. All force is conceived as vital force; +"souls" or "wills" govern all. The division +between animate and inanimate things is of the +vaguest possible character; that between man and +animals can hardly be said to exist. Only very +gradually do the distinctions between animate and +inanimate, voluntary and involuntary actions, which +are taken for granted by the modern mind, arise. +And it is easy to conceive that in the growth of these +distinctions, modes of thinking characteristic of +primitive man, would linger longest in the always +obscure field of psychology. Broadly, however, the +growth of knowledge has consisted, as Huxley +pointed out, in the substitution of a mechanical for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">{17}</a></span> +a volitional interpretation of things. In one department +after another purposeful action yields to inevitable +causation. In physics, chemistry, geology, +astronomy, and kindred sciences this process is now +complete. The volitional interpretation still betrays +a feeble vitality in biology; but even here the signs +of an early demise are unmistakable. Its last stronghold +is in psychology, and this because it is at once +the newest of the sciences to be placed upon a positive +basis, and also the most obscure in its ramifications. +Yet there can be no reasonable doubt that the same +principle which has been found to hold good in other +directions will sooner or later be shown to obtain here +also. Science is by its very nature progressive; and +its progress is manifested by the degree to which +phenomena hitherto unrelated are brought under +constantly enlarging and more comprehensive +generalisations. Men were once satisfied to explain +the "wetness" of water as due to a spirit of +"aquosity," the movement of the blood as due to +a "certain spirit" dwelling in the veins and arteries. +These were not statements of knowledge, but verbose +confessions of ignorance. To this same class of +belief belongs the "Free-Will" of the anti-determinist. +It is the living representative of that +immense family of souls and spirits with which early +animistic thought peopled the universe. The surviving +member of a once numerous family, it carries +with it the promise of the same fate that has already +overtaken its predecessors.</p> + +<p>The origin of the belief in free-will once understood, +the reasons for its perpetuation are not difficult +to discover. First comes the obscurity of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">{18}</a></span> +processes underlying human action. This alone +would secure a certain vitality for a belief that has +always made the impossibility of explaining the +origin, sequence, and relation of mental states its +principal defence. Beyond offering as evidence the +questionable affirmation of consciousness volitionists +have been unanimous in resting their case upon their +adversary's want of knowledge. And it is further +characteristic that while holding to a theory on +behalf of which not a single shred of positive +evidence has ever been produced, they yet demand +the most rigorous and the most complete demonstration +of determinism before they will accept it as true; +this despite the presumptive evidence in its favour +arising from the fact of its harmony with our knowledge +in other directions.</p> + +<p>Secondly, the human mind does not at any time +commence its philosophic speculations <i>de novo</i>. It +necessarily builds upon the materials accumulated by +previous generations; and usually retains the form +in which previous thinking has been cast, even when +the contents undergo marked modifications. Thus +the ghost-soul of the savage, a veritable material copy +of the body, by centuries of philosophizing gets +refined into the distinct "spiritual" substance of +the metaphysician. And this, not because the notion +of a "soul" was derived from current knowledge +or thinking, but because it was one of the inherited +forms of thought to which philosophy had to +accommodate itself. The result of this pressure of +the past upon contemporary thinking is that a large +proportion of mental activity is in each generation +devoted to reconciling past theories of things with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">{19}</a></span> +current knowledge. In our own time the number of +volumes written to reconcile the theory of evolution +with already existing religious views is a striking +example of this phenomenon. And beyond the +philosophic few there lies the mass of the people with +whom an established opinion of any kind takes on +something of a sacred character. Unfortunately, +too, many writers work with an eye to the prejudices +of this class, which prejudices are in turn +strengthened by the tacit support of men of ability, +or at least by their not openly controverting them. +It is, however, of the greatest significance that since +the opening of the modern scientific period, wherever +qualified thinkers have deliberately based their conclusions +upon contemporary knowledge the theory +of determinism has been generally upheld.</p> + +<p>A third cause of the persistence of the belief in +"Free-Will" is its association with theology. For +at least four centuries, whenever the discussion of +the subject has assumed an acute form, it has been +due to theological requirements rather than to ethical +or psychological considerations. True, many other +reasons have been advanced, but these have been +little more than cloaks for the theological interest. +Apart from theology there does not seem any valid +reason why the principle of determinism should +rouse more opposition in connection with human +character than it does in connection with the course +of physical nature. Or if it be pointed out that the +establishment of the principle of universal causation, +as applied to nature at large, was not established +without opposition, then the reply is that here again +it was the religious interest that dictated the opposi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">{20}</a></span>tion. +It was felt that the reduction of all physical +phenomena to a mechanical sequence was derogatory +to the majesty of God, excluded the deity from his +own universe, and generally weakened the force of +religious beliefs. And, as a mere matter of historic +fact, the establishment of the scientific conception +of nature did have, with the bulk of mankind, +precisely the consequences predicted. And when in +the course of events theological considerations were +banished from one department of science after +another, it was only natural that theologians should +fight with the greater tenacity to maintain a footing +in the region of human nature.</p> + +<p>Although the subject is in origin pre-Christian, +it was in connection with Christian theology that it +assumed an important place in European thinking. +The development of monotheism gave the problem +a sharper point and a deeper meaning. The issue +here was a simple one. Given the belief in God as +sole creator and governor of the world, and he may +conceivably be related to mankind in one of two +ways. Either he induces man to carry out his will +by an appeal to human reason and emotion, or he +has so arranged matters that certain events will +inevitably come to pass at a certain time, human +effort being one of the contributory agencies to that +end. The first supposition leaves man "free"—at +least in his relation to deity. The second leads +straight to the Christian doctrine of predestination. +Either supposition has, from the theological point +of view, its disadvantages. The first leaves man +free as against God, but it limits the power of deity +by creating an autonomous force that may act<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">{21}</a></span> +contrary to the divine will. The second opens up the +question of the divine wisdom and goodness, and by +making God responsible for evil conflicts with the +demands of the moral sense. Evil and goodness are +made parts of the divine plan, and as man must fit +in with the general pre-arranged scheme, personal +merit and demerit disappear. These considerations +explain why in the course of the Free-Will controversy +official Christianity has ranged itself now on +one side and now on the other. It has championed +Determinism or Indeterminism as the occasion served +its interest. To-day, owing to easily discoverable +reasons, Christian writers are, in the main, markedly +anti-deterministic.</p> + +<p>The first clear statement of the Christian position, +if we omit the Pauline teaching that we are all as +clay in the hands of the potter, appears in the +writings of Augustine. In opposition to the +Pelagians, Augustine maintained a doctrine of +absolute predestination. No room was allowed for +human self-determination to anyone but the first +man. Adam was created and endowed with free-will, +and chose evil—a curious verification of +Voltaire's definition of Free-Will as a capacity by +means of which man gets himself damned. And as +in Adam there were contained, potentially, all future +generations, all are pre-destined to eternal damnation +except such as are saved through the free gift +of divine grace. This theory of Augustine's, +carried to the point of asserting the damnation of +infants, was modified in several respects by that +great medieval Christian teacher, Thomas Aquinas, +who held that while the will might be "free" from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">{22}</a></span> +external restraint, it was determined by our reason, +but was reinstated in full force by John Calvin. He +denied that the goodness or badness of man had +anything whatever to do with the bestowal or withholding +of grace. God dooms men either to heaven +or hell, for no other reason than that he chooses to +do so. Most of the leading Protestants of the early +Reformation period were strongly opposed to "free-will." +For instance, Zwingli asserted that God was +the "author, mover, and impeller to sin." Still +more emphatic was Luther. The will of man he +compared to a horse, "If mounted by God it wills +and wends whithersoever God may will; if mounted +by Satan it wills and wends whithersoever Satan may +will; neither hath it any liberty of choice to which +of the riders it shall run, or which it shall choose; +but the riders themselves contend for its acquisition +and possession." Among the most powerful essays +ever written in defence of Determinism was +Jonathan Edwards's, the famous Protestant divine, +"Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions +respecting that Freedom of Will which is supposed +to be essential to moral agency, virtue and vice, +reward and punishment, praise and blame," and to +which I shall have occasion to refer later. Finally, +the explicit declarations of the Westminster Confession +of Faith and the Articles of the Church of +England, that man's will,—in the absence of grace,—cannot +accomplish good works, throw a curious +light on the theological opponents of Determinism +who denounce it as anti-Christian and immoral.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">{23}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="FREEDOM_AND_WILL" id="FREEDOM_AND_WILL"></a> +II.<br /> +"FREEDOM" AND "WILL."</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">To</span> David Hume the dispute between the advocates +of "Free-Will" and the advocates of "Necessity" +was almost entirely a matter of words. The essence +of the question, he thought, both sides were agreed +on, and consequently expressed the opinion that "a +few intelligible definitions would immediately have +put an end to the whole controversy." That Hume +was over sanguine is shown by the controversy being +still with us. Yet his recommendation as to +intelligible definitions, while pertinent to all controversy, +is specially so with regard to such a subject +as that of "Free-Will." For much of the anti-Determinist +case actually rests upon giving a +misleading significance to certain phrases, while +applying others in a direction where they have no +legitimate application. Consider, for instance, the +controversial significance of such a phrase as +"Liberty <i>versus</i> Necessity"—the older name for +Determinism. We all love liberty, we all resent compulsion, +and, as Mill pointed out, he who announces +himself as a champion of Liberty has gained the +sympathies of his hearers before he has commenced +to argue his case. Such words play the same part +that "catchy" election cries do in securing votes. +Such phrases as "Power of Choice," "Sense of +Responsibility," "Testimony of Consciousness,"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">{24}</a></span> +"Consciousness of Freedom," are all expressions +that, while helpful and legitimate when used with +due care and understanding, as usually employed +serve only to confuse the issue and prevent comprehension.</p> + +<p>Not that the dispute between the Volitionist and +the Determinist is a merely verbal one. The controversy +carries with it a significance of the deepest +kind. Fundamentally the issue expresses the antagonism +of two culture stages, an antagonism which +finds expression in many other directions. We are +in fact concerned with what Tylor well calls the +deepest of all distinctions in human thought, the +distinction that separates Animism from Materialism. +Much as philosophic ingenuity may do in the way +of inventing defences against the application of the +principle of causation to human action, the deeper +our analysis of the controversy, the more clearly is it +seen that we are dealing with an attenuated form of +that primitive animism which once characterised all +human thinking. The persistence of types is a +phenomenon that occurs as frequently in the world +of mind as it does in the world of biology. Or just +as when a country is overrun by a superior civilisation, +primitive customs are found lingering in remote +districts, so unscientific modes of thinking linger in +relation to the more obscure mental processes in spite +of the conquests of science in other directions.</p> + +<p>It is well to bear these considerations in mind, +even while admitting that a great deal of the dispute +does turn upon the fitness of the language employed, +and the accuracy with which it is used. And if +intelligible definition may not, as Hume hoped, end<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">{25}</a></span> +the controversy, it will at least have the merit of +making the issue plain.</p> + +<p>What is it that people have in their minds when +they speak of the "Freedom of the Will"? Curiously +enough, the advocates of "free-will" seldom +condescend to favour us with anything so commonplace +as a definition, or if they do it tells us little. +We are consequently compelled to dig out the meanings +of their cardinal terms from the arguments +used. Now the whole of the argument for "free-will" +makes the word "free" or "freedom" the +equivalent to <em>an absence of determining conditions</em>; +either this, or the case for "free-will" is surrendered. +For if a man's decisions are in any way +influenced—"influenced" is here only another word +for "determined"—Determinism is admitted. I +need not argue whether decisions are wholly or partly +determined, the real and only question being whether +they are determined at all. What is called by some a +limited free-will is really only another name for +unlimited nonsense.</p> + +<p>"Freedom," as used by the Volitionist, being an +equivalent for "absence of determining conditions," +let us ask next what this means. Here I am brought +to a dead halt. I do not know what it means. I +cannot even conceive it as meaning anything at all. +At any rate, I am quite certain that it is outside the +region of scientific thought and nomenclature. +Scientifically, atoms of matter are not <em>free</em> to move +in any direction, the planets are not <em>free</em> to move in +any shaped orbit, the blood is not <em>free</em> to circulate, +the muscles are not <em>free</em> to contract, the brain is +not <em>free</em> to function. In all these cases what takes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">{26}</a></span> +place is the result of all converging circumstances +and conditions. Given these and the result follows. +Scientifically, the thing that occurs is the only thing +possible. If the word "free" is used in science, +it is as a figure of speech, as when one speaks of a +free gas, or of the blood not being free to circulate +owing to the existence of a constricted artery. But +in either case all that is meant is that a change in +the nature of the conditions gives rise to a corresponding +change of result. The determination of +the gas or the blood to behave in a definite way is +as great in any case. From the point of view of +science, then, to speak of an absence of determining +conditions is the most complete nonsense. All +science is a search for the conditions that determine +phenomena. Save as a metaphor, "freedom" has +no place whatever in positive science.</p> + +<p>Are we then to discard the use of such a word +as "freedom" altogether? By no means. Properly +applied, the word is intelligible and useful +enough. When, for instance, we speak of a free +man, a free state, a free country, or free trade, we +are using the word "free" in a legitimate manner, +and can give to it a precise significance. A free +state is one in which the people composing it pursue +their way uncoerced by other states. A free man +is one who is at liberty to exert bodily action or +express his opinions. We do not mean that in the +first instance the people are not governed by laws, +or that physical conditions are without influence on +them; nor do we mean, in the second instance, that +the actions and opinions of the free man are not +the result of heredity, bodily structure, education,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">{27}</a></span> +social position, etc. The obvious meaning of +"freedom" in each of these cases is an absence +of external and non-essential coercion. It does not +touch the question of why we act as we do, or of +why we please to act in this or that manner. As +Jonathan Edwards puts it: "The plain, obvious +meaning of the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' is +power and opportunity, or advantage that any one +has to do as he pleases." Or as Hume put it more +elaborately:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"What is meant by liberty when applied to +voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean +that actions have so little connection with +motives, inclinations, and circumstances that +one does not follow with a certain degree of +uniformity from the other. For these are plain +and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, +then, we can only mean a power of acting or +not acting, according to the determination of +the will—that is, if we choose to remain at rest +we may; and if we choose to move, we also +may."</p></blockquote> + +<p>The ultimate significance of "liberty" or "freedom" +is thus sociological. Here it expresses a +fact; in positive science it is a mere metaphor, and, +as experience shows, a misleading one. Its use in +philosophy dates from the time of the Greeks, and +when they spoke of a free man they were borrowing +an illustration from their social life. There were +slaves and there were free men, and in speaking of +a free man people were not so likely as they were at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">{28}</a></span> +a later date to be misled by a metaphor. Unfortunately, +its use in philosophy has continued, while +its limitations have been ignored. To ask if a +man is free is an intelligible question. To ask +whether actions are free from the determining associations +of organization and environment admits of +but one intelligible reply. Personally, I agree with +Professor Bain that the term "is brought in by +main force, into a phenomenon to which it is altogether +incommensurable," and it would be well if +it could be excluded altogether from serious discussion<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>.</p> + +<p>Now let us take that equally confusing word +"will." Unfortunately, few of those who champion +the freedom of the will think it worth while +to trouble their readers with a clear definition of +what they mean by it. The orthodox definition of +the will as "a faculty of the soul" tells us nothing. +It is explaining something the existence of which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">{29}</a></span> +is questioned by reference to something else the +existence of which is unknown. Or the definition is +volunteered, "Will is the power to decide," a +description which only tells us that to will is to +will. Professor James tells us that "Desire, wish, +will, are states of mind which every one knows, +and which no definition can make plainer." This +may be true of desire and wish; it certainly is not +true of "will." There is no question as to "will" +being a state of mind, but as to every one knowing +its character, and above all possessing the knowledge +enabling him to discriminate between +"will" and "desire" and "wish," this is highly +questionable. One may also be permitted the +opinion that if advocates of "free-will" were to +seriously set themselves the task of discovering what +they do mean by "will," and also in what way it +may be differentiated from other mental states, the +number of the champions of that curious doctrine +would rapidly diminish.</p> + +<p>What is it that constitutes an act of volition, or +supplies us with the fact of will? The larger part +of our bodily movements do not come under the +heading of volition at all. The primary bodily +movements are reflex, instinctive, emotional, the +action following without any interposition of consciousness. +Of course, an action that is performed +quite automatically at one time may be voluntarily +performed at another time. I may close my eyelid +deliberately, or it may be because of the approach +of some foreign object. Or an action, if it be +performed frequently, tends to become automatic. +To come within the category of a voluntary action,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">{30}</a></span> +it must be performed consciously, and there is also +present some consciousness of an end to be realized. +Every voluntary action is thus really dependent +upon memory. A newly-born child has no volitions, +only reflexes. It is only when experience has supplied +us with an idea of what <em>may</em> be done that +we <em>will</em> it shall be done. This consideration alone +is enough to shatter the case for the supposed freedom +of the will.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> + +<p>If we analyze any simple act of volition what has +just been said will be made quite clear. I am +sitting in a room and <em>will</em> to open a window; it may +be to get fresh air, to look out, or for some other +reason. Assume that the first is the correct reason, +the room being close and "stuffy." First of all, +then, I become aware of a more or less unpleasant +feeling; my experience tells me this is because the +air in the room needs purifying. Experience +also tells me that by opening a window the desired +result will be obtained. Finally, I open the window +and experience a feeling of relief and satisfaction. +Now had the room been without a window, and the +door bolted from the outside, or had the window +been too heavy for me to raise, no "volition"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">{31}</a></span> +would have arisen. I should still have had the +desire for fresh air, but not seeing any means by +which this could be obtained, I should have had no +<em>motive</em> for action, and should have remained perfectly +passive. In order that my desire may operate +as a motive there must be not only a consciousness +of a need, but also a mental representation of the +means by which that need is to be gratified. I <em>will</em> +to do a thing, when allied to the desire for that +thing there is a conception of <em>how</em> it is to be done, +of the means to be employed. Without this I have +no motive, only a desire; without a consciousness of +the nature of the desire, there is nothing but pure +feeling. "Willing terminates with the prevalence of +the idea...." "Attention with effort is all that +any case of volition implies." (Prof. W. James, +<cite>Princip. of Psychology</cite>, II. 560-1.)</p> + +<p>The stages of the process are, feeling rising into +consciousness as desire, the perception of the means +to realize an end which raises the desire from the +statical to the dynamic stage of motive, and finally +a voluntary or intentional action. Now at no stage +of this process is there room for the intervention of +any power or faculty not expressed in a strictly +sequential process. Of course, the action I have +taken as an example is an exceedingly simple one, +but the more complex actions only offer greater +difficulties of analysis without leading to any different +result. This will be seen more clearly when we +come to deal with "choice" and "deliberation." +From the moment that a certain stimulus creates a +desire in an organism, to the time that desire +expresses itself in action, there is no gap in the chain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">{32}</a></span> +through which a "Free-Will" may manifest its +being. The physiologist points out that at the basis +of all our feelings and ideas there lie certain neural +processes. The psychologist takes up the story and +from the dawn of desire to action finds no break—or +at least none that future knowledge may not +reasonably hope to make good. Want of knowledge +may at present prevent our tracing all the +details of the process, but this is surely a very inadequate +ground on which to affirm the existence of a +power at variance with our knowledge of nature in +other directions.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> + +<p>Now in thus tracing the course of a voluntary +action are we doing any more than observing the +action of desire in consciousness? If, yes, the +writer is quite unaware of the fact. If I remove all +feeling, all desire, all motive, "the will" disappears. +Excite feeling, generate desire, and there +is the occasion for a voluntary action. Multiply the +number of desires and the operation of "will" +becomes evident. Thus when a writer like Professor +Hyslop says, "If two motives offer different +attractions to the will," the reply is that the "will" +is not one thing, and motives other things, but two +aspects of one fact. The "will" is not something +that decides or chooses between motives; the +"will" is nothing more than the name given to +that motive or cluster of motives which is sufficiently +strong to overcome resistance and to express itself<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">{33}</a></span> +in action. I emphasize the expression "overcome +resistance" because without competing motives and +a sense of resistance we have no clear consciousness +of volition. Where only one desire is present in +consciousness, or where it is of overwhelming +strength, feeling is succeeded by action without any +recognizable hiatus. It is the sense of conflict, the +break, that is essential to creating a lively sense of +volition, and also, as shall see later, to the sense of +choice and deliberation. But in speaking of an +action as the expression of motives, or as an expression +of "will," both statements are identical so far +as the fact is concerned. We have not desires, +motives, and "will," there is simply a desire or +desires that assume the quality of a motive by being +strong enough to result in action. As Spencer has +put it, "Will is no more an existence apart from +the predominant feeling than a king is an existence +apart from the man occupying the throne."</p> + +<p>All that is to be found in any act of "will" +is a desire accompanied by the consciousness of an +end. To put the same thing in another way, we +have a desire, the consciousness of an end and the +means of realizing it, and, finally, action. To the +physiological and psychological processes that culminate +in action we give the name of motive. Properly +speaking a motive that does not issue in action—or +inhibition—is not a motive at all, it is a mere +desire. And apart from the presence of desire, or +of desires, "will" does not exist. It is a pure +abstraction, valuable enough as an abstraction, but +having no more real existence apart from particular +motives, than "tree" is a real existence apart from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">{34}</a></span> +particular trees. Physiologically, says Dr. Maudsley:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"We cannot choose but reject <em>the</em> will.... +As physiologists we have to deal with volition +as a function of the supreme centres, following +reflection, varying in quantity and quality as +its cause varies, strengthened by education and +exercise, enfeebled by disuse, decaying with +decay of structure.... We have to deal with +will not as a single undecomposable faculty +unaffected by bodily conditions, but as a result +of organic changes in the supreme centres, +affected as certainly and as seriously by disorders +of them as our motor faculties are by +disorders of their centres."</p></blockquote> + +<p>And, says Professor Sully, referring to <em>the</em> +will:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"Modern scientific psychology knows nothing +of such an entity. As a science of +phenomena and their laws, it confines itself to +a consideration of the processes of volition, and +wholly discards the hypothesis of a substantial +will as unnecessary and unscientific."</p></blockquote> + +<p>Neither physiology nor psychology, neither a sane +science nor a sound philosophy, knows anything of, +or can find use for, an autonomous "will." +"Will" as the final term of a discoverable series +may be admitted; "will" as a self-directing force, +deciding whether particular desires shall or shall not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">{35}</a></span> +prevail, answers to nothing conformable to our +knowledge of man, and is plainly but the ghost of +the wills and souls of our savage ancestors. If +instead of speaking of the freedom of the will, we +spoke of uncaused volitions, the position of the +volitionist would be clear, and its indefensible +character plain to all. But by giving the abstraction +"will" a concrete existence, and by taking +from sociology a word such as "freedom" and +using it in a sphere in which it has no legitimate +application, the issue is confused, and a scientifically +absurd theory given an air of plausibility. The +dispute between the Determinist and the Indeterminist +is certainly not one of words only, but it is +one in which the cardinal terms employed need the +most careful examination if we are to clear away +from the subject the verbal fog created by theologians +and metaphysicians.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">{36}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="CONSCIOUSNESS_DELIBERATION_CHOICE" id="CONSCIOUSNESS_DELIBERATION_CHOICE"></a> +III.<br /> +CONSCIOUSNESS, DELIBERATION, AND +CHOICE.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> one argument used by the Indeterminist +against the Deterministic position with some degree +of universality is that of the testimony of consciousness. +It is the one to which practically all +have appealed, and which all have flattered themselves +was simple in nature and convincing in +character. Professor Sidgwick, although he admitted +that this testimony might be illusory, yet +asserted "There is but one opposing argument of +real force, namely, the immediate affirmation of +consciousness in the moment of deliberate action." +And by the testimony of consciousness must be +meant, not, of course, a consciousness of acting, +but that at the moment of acting we could, <em>under +identical conditions</em>, have selected and acted upon +an alternative that has been rejected. I emphasize +the phrase "under identical conditions," because +otherwise nothing is in dispute, and because, as we +shall see, this important consideration has not been +always or even frequently borne in mind.</p> + +<p>The question is, What does consciousness really +tell us, and how far is its testimony valid? In +some directions it must be admitted that the testimony +of consciousness is absolute. In others it cannot, +without verification, claim any authority whatever. +When I say that I have a feeling of heat or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">{37}</a></span> +coldness, of pleasure or pain, there is here a direct +deliverance of consciousness against which there is +no appeal. But consciousness does not and cannot +tell me why I feel hot or cold, or what is the cause +of a pain I am experiencing. In this last case the +testimony of consciousness may be distinctly misleading. +As it tells us nothing of the existence +of a brain, a nervous system, viscera, etc., its testimony +as to the cause of pain is obviously of no +value. We are conscious of states of mind, and +that is all. A man seized with sudden paralysis +may be conscious of his power to move a limb, only +to discover by experience his impotence. In short, +consciousness cannot, indeed does not, tell us the +causes of our states of mind. For this information +we are thrown back upon observation, experiment, +and experience. We must, then, make quite sure +when we interrogate consciousness, exactly what it +is that consciousness says, and whether what it says +is on a subject that comes within its province.</p> + +<p>What is, then, the testimony of consciousness? +When it is said that we are conscious of our ability +to have selected one alternative at the time that +another is chosen, I think this may be fairly met +with the retort that consciousness is unable to inform +us as to our actual ability to <em>do</em> anything at all. I +may be quite conscious of a desire to jump a six +foot fence, or lift a weight of half a ton, but +whether I am actually able to do so or not, only +experience can decide. What I am really conscious +of is a desire to vault a given height or lift a given +weight, and it is surely an inexcusable confusion to +speak of a desire to do a particular thing as the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">{38}</a></span> +equivalent of an ability to do it. If a consciousness +of desire equalled the ability to perform failure +would be but little known among men.</p> + +<p>All that consciousness really tells us is of the +existence of passing states of mind. It can tell us +nothing of their origin, their value, or their consequences. +In the particular instance under consideration +consciousness informs us of the fact of choice, +and this no Determinist has ever dreamed of denying. +He does assert that choice, as the Indeterminist +persists in using the term, is a delusion, but +otherwise, as will be shown later, he claims that it +is only on deterministic lines that choice can have +any meaning or ethical significance. In any +voluntary action I am conscious of the possibility +of choice and of having chosen, and that is really +all. What is the nature of that possibility, and why +I choose one thing rather than another—on these +points consciousness can give us no information +whatever. One might as reasonably argue that a +consciousness of hunger gives us a knowledge of the +process of digestion, as argue that a consciousness +of choice supplies us with a knowledge of the mechanism +of the process. We are conscious of the +presence of several desires, we are also conscious +that out of these several desires one is strong +enough to rank as a motive, but it tells us absolutely +nothing of the causes or conditions that have +resulted in the emergence of that motive. Instead +of telling us that we could have acted in opposition +to the strongest motive—which is really the indeterminist +position—consciousness simply reveals which +desire is the most powerful. We are conscious that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">{39}</a></span> +other desires were present, we are also aware of the +possibility that another desire than the one that +actually prevailed might have been the most powerful; +but when we admit this and say that we <em>could</em> +have acted differently, we have really displaced the +actual conditions by imaginary ones. We <em>might</em> +have preferred to act differently. This is not +denied. It is not questioned that we do choose, or +that the same person chooses, differently or different +occasions. The question really is, Why have we +chosen thus or thus? And so far as consciousness +is concerned we are quite in the dark as to why one +choice is made rather than another, what are the +conditions that give rise to our conscious desires, or +why one desire is more powerful than another.</p> + +<p>Consciousness, then, can testify only to the +reality of its own states; no more. It can tell us +nothing of their causes. It cannot tell us that man +has a brain and nervous system, and can tell us +nothing of the connection between mental states and +the condition of the bodily organs. The chief +factor in conduct (habit) lies outside the region of +consciousness altogether. In most cases we act as +we have been in the habit of acting, and our present +conduct expresses the sum of our previous actions +and inclinations. Every action we perform assists +the formation of a habit, and with every repetition +of a particular action we find its performance easier. +Indeed, a very powerful criticism of the trustworthiness +of consciousness is found in the fact that +the determining causes of conduct lie largely in the +region of the unconscious or subconscious, and of +this territory consciousness can tell us no more than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">{40}</a></span> +a ripple on the surface of a river can tell us of its +depths.</p> + +<p>Next to the emphasis upon the testimony of consciousness +the Indeterminist lays special stress upon +the facts of choice and deliberation. Can we really +say, it is asked, that man chooses and deliberates, +or even that in any genuine sense he does anything +at all, if all his actions are pre-determined by his +constitution and environment? If every act of man +is determined and man himself a mere stage in the +process unending and unbroken, is it not idle to +speak of man deliberating on alternatives and +choosing that which seems to him best? We continue +using words that on deterministic lines have +lost all meaning. And if Determinists do not +realise this, it is because the logical implications of +their doctrines have never been fully explored.</p> + +<p>Well, it entirely depends upon the sense in which +one uses the cardinal terms in the discussion. If +deliberation and choice when applied to mental +processes are used in the same sense as when these +terms are used as descriptive of the proceedings of +a committee, then we can all agree that deliberation +would be as great a sham as it would be if +the members of a committee before meeting had +determined upon their decision. But, we may +note in passing, that even here, when the +deliberations are genuine, the votes of each +member are supposed to be decided by the +reasons advanced during the discussion—that is the +decision of each individual member is determined +by the forces evoked during the deliberations.</p> + +<p>The scientific method, and it may be added, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">{41}</a></span> +sane and profitable method, is not to come to the +study of a problem with ready-made meanings and +compel the facts, under penalty of disqualification, +to agree with them, but to let the facts determine +what meaning is to be attached to the words used. +It is mere childish petulance for the Indeterminist +to say that unless certain words are used with <em>his</em> +meaning they shall not be used at all, but shall be +expelled from our vocabulary. When gravity was conceived +as a force moving downward through infinite +space, the existence of people on the other side of +the earth was denied as being contrary to the law +of gravitation. A more correct knowledge of the +phenomena did not lead people to discard gravity; +the meaning of the word was revised. And really +neither language nor morality is the private property +of the Indeterminist, and he is, therefore, not at +liberty to annihilate either for not coming up to his +expectations. He must submit to such revision of +his ideas, or his language, or of both, as more accurate +knowledge may demand.</p> + +<p>The question is not, then, whether Determinism +destroys deliberation and choice and responsibility, +but what meaning Determinism can legitimately +place upon these words, and is this meaning in +harmony with what we know to be true. With +responsibility we will deal at length later. For the +present let us see what is really involved in the fact +of choice. Determinism, we are advised, must deny +the reality of choice, because choice assumes alternatives, +and there can be no genuine alternatives if +events are determined. Let us see. If I am +watching a stone rolling down a hillside, and am<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">{42}</a></span> +in doubt as to whether it will pass to the right or +to the left of a given point, I shall not recognize any +resident capacity in the stone for choosing one path +rather than the other. The absence of consciousness +in the stone precludes such an assumption. But +suppose we substitute for the stone a barefooted +human being, and assume that one path is smooth +while the other is liberally sprinkled with sharp +pointed stones. There would then be an obvious +reason for the selection of one path, and no one +would hesitate to say that here was an illustration +of the exercise of choice. Choice, then, is a phenomenon +of consciousness, and it implies a recognition +of alternatives. But a recognition of alternatives +does not by any means imply that either of two are +equally eligible. It is merely a consciousness of the +fact that they exist, and that either might be +selected were circumstances favourable to its selection. +Without labouring the point we may safely +say that all that is given in the fact of choice is the +consciousness of a choice. There is nothing in it +that tells us of the conditions of the selection, or +whether it was possible for the agent to have chosen +differently or not.</p> + +<p>So far there is nothing in Determinism that is +discordant with the fact of choice, indeed, it has a +perfectly reasonable theory of the process. Why +is there a choice or selection of things or actions? +Clearly the reason must be looked for in the nature +of the thing selected, or in the nature of the agent +that selects, or in a combination of both factors. +Either there is an organic prompting in favour of +the thing selected, as when a baby takes a bottle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">{43}</a></span> +of milk and rejects a bottle of vinegar, or there is +a recognition that the selection will enable the agent +to better realize whatever end he has in view. The +alternatives are there, and they are real in the only +sense in which they can be real. But they are not +real in the sense of their being equally eligible—which +is the sense in which the Indeterminist uses the +word. For that would destroy choice altogether. +Unless a selection is made because certain things +offer greater attractions than other things to the +agent, no intelligible meaning can be attached to +such a word as "Choice." We should have a mere +blind explosion of energy, the direction taken no +more involving choice than the stone's path down a +hillside. And if the "Will" chooses between +alternatives because one is more desirable than the +other, its "freedom" (in the Indeterminist sense) +is sacrificed, and the selection is correspondingly +determined. There can be no real choice in the +absence of a determinative influence exercised by +one of the things chosen.</p> + +<p>But it is urged that this line of reasoning does +not explain the feeling of possibility that we have +at the moment of action. I think it explains possibility +as it explains choice, provided we allow facts +to determine the meaning of words instead of +torturing facts to suit certain forms of language. +If by possibility we mean that under identical conditions, +other things than those which actually occur +are possible, then this may be confidently met with +a flat denial. If, on the other hand, it is meant +that by varying the conditions other possibilities +become actualities, this is a statement that to a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">{44}</a></span> +Determinist is self-evident. As a matter of fact, +there are only two senses in which the word "possibility" +may be rightly used, and neither sense +yields any evidence against Determinism.</p> + +<p>One of these meanings is simply an expression of +our own ignorance on the matter that happens to be +before us. If I am asked what kind of weather +we are likely to have a month hence, I should reply +that it is equally possible the day may be dry or +wet, bright or dull. I do not mean to imply that +had I adequate knowledge it would not be as easy +to predict the kind of weather on that date as it +is to predict the position of Neptune. It is simply +an expression of my own ignorance. But, as +Spinoza pointed out, possibility narrows as knowledge +grows. To complete ignorance anything is +possible because the course of events is unknown. +As a comprehension of natural causation develops, +people speak less of what may possibly occur, and +more of what will occur. Possibility here has no +reference to the course of events, only to our knowledge, +or want of knowledge, concerning their +order. To say that it is possible for a man to do +either this or that is, so far as a spectator is concerned, +only to say that our knowledge concerning +the man's whole nature is not extensive enough, or +exact enough for us to predict what he will do. +Nor is the case altered if instead of an outsider, +it is the agent himself who is incapable of prediction. +For all that amounts to is the assertion that +the agent is ignorant of the relative strength of +desires that may be aroused under a particular conjuncture +of circumstances.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">{45}</a></span> +The second sense of "possibility" depends upon +our ability to imagine conditions not actually present +at the moment of action. By a trick of +imagination I can picture myself acting differently, +or, on looking back, I can see that I might have +acted differently. But in either case I have altered +in thought the conditions that actually existed at +the moment of action. Generally, all it means is +that with a number of conflicting desires present, +I am conscious that a very slight variation in the +relative strength of these desires would result in a +different course of conduct. And the conditions +affecting conduct are so complex and so easily +varied that it is small wonder there is lacking in +this instance that sense of inevitability present when +one is dealing with physical processes. But the +essential question is not whether a slight change of +conditions would produce a different result, but +whether under identical conditions two opposite +courses of action are equally possible? And this is +not only untrue in fact, it is unthinkable, as a +formal proposition. Even the old adage, "There, +but for the grace of God, go I," while recognizing +a different possibility, also recognized that a variation +in the factors—the elimination of the grace of +God—is essential if the possibility was to become an +actuality. That the sense of possibility implies +more than this may be safely denied, let who will +make the opposite affirmation.</p> + +<p>This discussion of the nature and function of +choice will help us to realize more clearly than would +otherwise be the case the nature of deliberation. +This question has always played an important part<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">{46}</a></span> +in the Free-Will controversy, because it has stood +as the very antithesis of a reflex or obviously mechanical +action. Deliberation, it has been argued, +does very clearly point to a determinative power +exercised by the human will, and a power that +cannot be explained in the same terms with which +we explain other events. One anti-determinist +writer remarks that "if a volition is the effect of a +'motive,' it should follow immediately upon the +occurrence of the motive. But if there is deliberation +between motives, they do not seem to have +casual power to initiate a volition until a prior causal +power directs them, and this would be the deliberating +subject."</p> + +<p>Now there are numerous cases, the majority probably, +where action does follow immediately upon +the presence of desire. And in such cases we are +not aware of any process of deliberation, although +there may be a truly intentional action. And from +this single case we have a whole series of examples +that will take us to the other extreme where the +desires are so numerous and so conflicting that an +excess of deliberation may prevent action altogether. +Let us take an illustration. Sitting in my room on +a fine day I am conscious of a desire for a walk. +Provided no opposing feeling or desire is present +I should at once rise and go out. But I may be +conscious of a number of other feelings based upon +various considerations. There is the fact of leaving +the task on which I am engaged, and the desire to +get it finished. There is the trouble of dressing, +the consideration that once out I may wish I had +stayed in, or that it may rain, or that I may be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">{47}</a></span> +needed at home: all these result in a state of indecision, +and induce deliberation. Imagination is +excited, ideal feelings are aroused, and eventually +a choice is made. I decide on the walk. What is +it, now, that has occurred? My first desire for a +walk has been enforced by a representation of all +the advantages that may be gained by going out, +and these have proved themselves strong enough to +bear down all opposition. Had any other desire +gained strength, or had the conviction that it would +rain been strong enough, a different motive would +have emerged from this conflict of desires and +ideas. No matter how we vary the circumstances, +this is substantially what occurs in every case where +deliberation and choice are involved. Not only is +this what does occur, but it is impossible to picture +clearly any other process. The only evidence we +can have of the relative strength of ideas is that one +triumphs over others. To say that the weaker +desire triumphs is to make a statement the absurdity +of which is self-evident.</p> + +<p>This conclusion cannot be invalidated by the +argument that a particular desire becomes the +stronger because the "will" declares in its favour. +One need only ask, by way of reply, Why does the +"will" declare in favour of one desire rather than +another? There is no dispute that a choice is made. +Those who say that a man can choose what he likes +are not making a statement that conflicts in the +slightest degree with Determinism. The Determinist +says as clearly as anyone that I do what I +choose to do. The real question is why do I choose +this rather than that? Why does the "will" pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">{48}</a></span>nounce +in favour of one desire rather than another? +No one can believe that all desires are of equal +strength or value to the agent. Such an assumption +would be too absurd for serious argument. But if +all desires are not of equal strength and value, the +only conclusion left is that certain ones operate +because they are, in relation to the particular organism, +of greater value than others. And in that case +we are simply restating Determinism. The action +of the environment is conditioned by the nature of +the organism. The reaction of the organism is +conditioned by the character of the environment. +The resultant is a compound of the two.</p> + +<p>It is, moreover, an absurdity to speak of the +"will" or the self as though this were something +apart from the various phases of consciousness. In +the contest of feelings and desires that calls forth +deliberation <em>I</em> am equally involved in every aspect +of the process. As Professor James points out, +"both effort and resistance are ours, and the identification +of our <em>self</em> with one of these factors is an +illusion and a trick of speech." My self and my +mental states are not two distinct things; they constitute +myself, and if these are eliminated there +is no self left to talk about.</p> + +<p>Further, in the growth of each individual, conscious +and deliberative action can be seen developing +out of automatic action—the simplest and earliest +type of action. Not only does deliberative action +develop from reflex action, but it sinks into reflex +action again. One of the commonest of experiences +is that actions performed at one time slowly and after +deliberation are at another time performed rapidly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">{49}</a></span> +and automatically. Every action contributes to the +formation of a habit, and frequently repetition +results in the habit becoming a personal characteristic. +Deliberation and choice are not even always +the mark of a highly developed character; they may +denote a poorly-developed one—one that is ill +adapted to social requirements. One man, on +going into a room where there is a purse of money, +may only after long deliberation and from conscious +choice refrain from stealing it. Another person, +under the same conditions, may be conscious of no +choice, no effort, the desire to steal the purse being +one that is foreign to his nature. In two such by no +means uncommon instances, we should have no +doubt as to which represented the higher type of +character. Morally, it is not the feeling, "I could +have acted dishonestly instead of honestly had I so +chosen," that marks the ethically developed +character, but the performance of the right action +at the right moment, without a consciousness of +tendency in the opposite direction. But the aim of +education is, in the one direction, to weaken the +sense of choice by the formation of right habits, +moral and intellectual; and on the other hand by +bringing man into a more direct contact with a +wider and more complex environment, deliberation +becomes one of the conditions of a co-ordination of +ideas and actions that will result in a more perfect +adaptation.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">{50}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="SOME_ALLEGED_CONSEQUENCES" id="SOME_ALLEGED_CONSEQUENCES"></a> +IV.<br /> +SOME ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES OF +DETERMINISM.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">Not</span> the least curious aspect of the Free-Will controversy +is that those who oppose Determinism base +a large part of their argumentation upon the supposed +evil consequences that will follow its acceptance. +In a work from which I have already cited, +Mr. F. C. S. Schiller falls foul of Determinism +because, he says, while incompatible with morality, +its champions nevertheless imagine they are leaving +morality undisturbed. The real difficulty of +Determinism is, he says, that in its world, events +being fully determined, there can be no alternatives. +Things are what they must be. They must be +because they are. No man can help doing what +he does. Man himself belongs to a sequence +unending and unbroken. "To imagine therefore +that Determinism, after annihilating the moral +agent, remains compatible with morality, simply +means that the logical implications of the doctrine +have never been fully explored." And he adds: +"The charge against it is not merely that it fails +to do full justice to the ethical fact of responsibility, +but that it utterly annihilates the moral agent." +This, he says, is the real dilemma, and Determinism +has never answered it.</p> + +<p>It is curious that so clever a writer as Mr. Schiller<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">{51}</a></span> +should fail to realize that taking Determinism in its +most drastic form, and accepting it in the most +unequivocal manner, nothing can suffer, because +everything remains as it must be—including the +facts, feelings, and consequences of the moral life. +Observe, it is part of Mr. Schiller's case against +Determinism that on determinist lines everything, +down to the minutest happenings, is the necessary +result of all antecedent and co-operating conditions. +But this being the case, if Determinism leaves no +room for chance or absolute origination, how comes +it that an acceptance of Determinism initiates an +absolutely new thing—the destruction of morality? +Surely it is coming very near the absurd to charge +Determinism with breaking an unbreakable +sequence. It is surely idle to credit Determinism +with doing what is impossible for it to accomplish. +So far as morality is a real thing, so far as the facts +of the moral life are real things, Determinism must +leave them substantially unaltered. The problem +is, as has been already said, to find out for what +exactly all these things stand. To read wrong +meanings into the facts of life, and then to declare +that the facts cease to exist if the meanings are +corrected, is unphilosophical petulance.</p> + +<p>It is, indeed, quite open to the Determinist to +meet these grave fears as to the consequences of +Determinism with a denial that morality is vitally +concerned with the question of whether man's +"will" be "free" or not. The question of +Determinism may enter into the subject of how to +develop character along desirable lines; and, apart +from Determinism, it is difficult to see how there can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">{52}</a></span> +be anything like a scientific cultivation of character. +But the fact of morality and the value of morality +are not bound up with whether conduct be the +expression of theoretically calculable factors, or +whether it is, on the one side, determined by a self +which originates its own impulses. Determinism or +no Determinism, murder, to take an extreme illustration, +is never likely to become an every-day +occupation in human society. Neither can any other +action that is obviously injurious to the well-being +of society be practised beyond certain well-defined +limits. The laws of social health operate to check +socially injurious actions, as the laws of individual +health operate to check injurious conduct in dietary +or in hygiene. Determinists and Indeterminists, as +may easily be observed, manifest a fairly uniform +measure of conduct, and whatever variations from +the normal standard each displays cannot well be +put down to their acceptance or rejection of Determinism.</p> + +<p>The real nature of morality is best seen if one +asks oneself the question, "What is morality?" +Let us imagine the human race reduced to a single +individual. What would then be the scope and +character of morality? It is without question that +a large part of our moral rules would lose all meaning. +Theft, murder, unchastity, slander, etc., +would be without meanings, for the simple reason +that there would be none against whom such offences +could be committed. Would there be any moral +laws or moral feelings left? Would there even +be a man left under such conditions? One might +safely query both statements. For if we take away<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">{53}</a></span> +from this solitary individual all that social culture +and intercourse have given him—language, knowledge, +habits both mental and moral, all, in short, +that has been developed through the agency of the +social medium—man, as we know him, disappears, +and a mere animal is left in his place. Even the +feeling that a man has a duty to himself, and that +to realize his highest possibilities is the most imperative +of moral obligations, is only an illustration of +the same truth. For very little analysis serves to +show that even this derives its value from the significance +of the individual to the social structure.</p> + +<p>Morality, then, is wholly a question of relationship. +Not whether my actions spring from a self-determined +"will" or even whether they are the +inevitable consequent of preceding conditions makes +them moral or immoral, but their influence in forwarding +or retarding certain ideal social relations. +The rightness or wrongness of an action lies in its +consequences. Whether one is of the Utilitarian or +other school of morals does not substantially affect +the truth of this statement. Action without consequences—assuming +its possibility—would have no +moral significance whatever. And consequences +remain whether we accept or reject Determinism. +Determinism cannot alter or regulate the consequences +of actions, it can only indicate their causes +and their results. What a science of morals is +really concerned with is, objectively, the consequences +of actions, and subjectively the feelings +that lead to their performance. When a science of +morals has determined what actions best promote +desirable relations between human beings, and what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">{54}</a></span> +states of mind are most favourable to the performance +of such actions, its task as a science of morals +is concluded. The genesis of such states of mind +belongs to psychology, just as to sociology belong +the creation and maintenance of such social conditions +as will best give them expression and actuality.</p> + +<p>The question of the moral consequences of Determinism +is not, therefore, discussed because we +believe there is any relevancy in the issue thus +raised, but solely because it is raised, and not to +deal with it may create a prejudice against Determinism. +Many of those who quite admit the +scientific character of Determinism, yet insist on the +necessity for some sort of Indeterminism in the +region of morals. Professor William James, for +instance, admits that a profitable study of mental +phenomena is impossible unless we postulate Determinism +(<cite>Prin. Psych.</cite> ii. 573). But having +admitted this, and in fact illustrated it through the +whole of his two volumes, his next endeavour is to +find a place for "free-will" as a "moral postulate." +The region of morals is thus made to play +the part of a haven of refuge for illegitimate and +unscientific theories, a kind of workhouse for all +mental vagrants found at large without visible +means of support. The moral postulate which is to +reinstate "Free-Will," is that "What ought to be +can be, and that bad acts cannot be fated, but that +good ones must be possible in their place." In a +writer usually so clear this somewhat ambiguous +deliverance is far more indicative of a desire to befriend +an oppressed theory than of the possession of +any good evidence in its behalf.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">{55}</a></span> +The matter really turns upon what is meant by +"ought" and "possible." It has already been +pointed out that if by "possible" it is meant that +although one thing actually occurs, another thing—a +different thing—might have occurred without any +alteration in the accompanying conditions, the statement +is not only untrue in fact, but it is inconceivable +as possibly true. And if it does not mean this, +then Professor James is merely stating what every +Determinist most cheerfully endorses. But in that +case the "possibility" gives no support whatever +to the Indeterminist. Further, Professor James +says that Determinism is a clear and seductive conception +so long as one "stands by the great +scientific postulate that the world must be one +unbroken fact, and that prediction of all things +without exception must be ideally, even if not +actually, possible." On which one may enquire, +how prediction could be at all possible unless, given +the co-operating conditions, a definite and particular +result is inevitable? But if prediction be possible—and +the whole power of science lies in its power of +prediction—what becomes of the value of "possibility" +to the Indeterminist? Is it any more than +an expression of our ignorance of the power of +particular factors, and a consequent ignorance of +their resultant?</p> + +<p>To say that certain things "ought" to be, or +that one "ought" to act in this or that particular +manner, are common expressions, and within +limits, relevant and intelligible expressions. But +"ought" here clearly stands for no more than +ideal conception. Its reference is to the future,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">{56}</a></span> +not to the past. It does not imply a belief that +things could have resulted other than those which +actually did result, but a belief that given a suitable +alteration in the conditions different results +might ensue in the future. When, for example, I +say that men ought to think wisely, I do not affirm +either that all men do think wisely, or that foolish +men can do so without some change in their mental +make-up. I merely eliminate all those conditions +that make for unwise thinking, leaving wise +thinking as the only possible result. That is, +recognizing that from different conditions different +consequences will follow, in imagination, all forces +that are inimical to the ideal end are eliminated. +We say that no man ought to commit murder, and +yet if we take as an illustration the congenital +homicide, no one can assert that in his case, at +least, anything but murder is possible, given +favourable conditions for its perpetration. Or if it +is said that congenital homicide is a purely pathological +case, it may surely be asserted that the +same general considerations apply to cases that are +not classified as pathological. The more we know +of the criminal's heredity, environment, and +education, the more clearly it is seen that his deeds +result from the inter-action of these factors, and +that these must be modified if we are reasonably +to expect any alteration in his conduct. In fact, the +criminal—or the saint—being what he is as the +result of the inter-action of possibly calculable +factors is the essential condition towards making +"the prediction of all things" ideally, if not +actually possible. In saying, then, that a man<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">{57}</a></span> +ought not to do wrong, we are only saying that +our ideal of a perfect man eliminates the idea of +wrong-doing, and that our imagination is powerful +enough to construct a human character to which +wrong-doing shall be alien.</p> + +<p>The fallacy here is due to a confusion of the +actual with the desirable. If we are looking to +the past we are bound to say that "ought" is +meaningless, because what has been is the only +thing that could have been. Thus it is meaningless +to say that a piece of string capable of +withstanding a strain of half a hundredweight ought +to have withstood a strain of half a ton. It is +equally absurd to say that a man ought to have +withstood the germ of malarial fever, when his +constitution rendered him susceptible to attack. +Both of these instances will be readily admitted. +Is it, then, any more reasonable to say that a man +ought to have withstood a temptation to drunkenness, +or theft, or cruelty—in the sense that given +his nature he <em>could</em> have withstood it—when all the +circumstances of character, heredity, and environment +made for his downfall? We say that certain +considerations "ought" to have restrained Jones +because they were enough to restrain Smith. Are +we, then, to conclude that Smith and Jones are +so much alike—are, in fact, identical in character—that +the same forces will influence each in the same +manner and to the same degree? The assumption +is obviously absurd. What ought to have +happened with Smith and Jones, bearing in mind +all the conditions of the problem, is what did +happen. What ought to happen to Smith and Jones<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">{58}</a></span> +in the future will be equally dependent upon the +extent to which the character of the two becomes +modified. In this sense our conception of what +"ought" to be in the future will guide us as to +the nature of the influences we bring to bear upon +Smith and Jones. We believe that good actions +may be possible in the future where bad ones +occurred in the past, because we see that a change +of conditions may produce the desired result. The +"moral postulate," therefore, does not contain +anything, or imply anything, in favour of Indeterminism. +It does assert that certain things ought +to be, but it can only realize this by recognizing, +and acting upon the recognition, that just as certain +forces in the past have issued in certain results, +so a modification in the nature or incidence of these +forces will produce a corresponding modification of +conduct in the future. Whatever else there appears +to be in the "ought" is a mere trick of the +imagination; and the surprising thing is that a +writer of the calibre of Professor James should +not have been perfectly alive to this.</p> + +<p>A cruder form of the same position, although +introducing other issues, was upheld by Dr. +Martineau in the categorical statement, "either +free-will is a fact, or moral judgment a delusion." +His reason for this remarkable statement is:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"We could never condemn one turn of act +or thought did we not believe the agent to have +command of another; and just in proportion as +we perceive, in his temperament or education +or circumstances, the certain preponderance of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">{59}</a></span> +particular suggestions, and the near approach +to an inner necessity, do we criticize him rather +as a natural object than as a responsible being, +and deal with his aberrations as maladies +instead of sins."<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p></blockquote> + +<p>Well, human nature might easily have been nearer +perfection than it is had moral aberrations been +treated as maladies rather than sins, and one certainly +would not have felt greater regret had judges +and critics always been capable of rising to this +level of judgment. Social, political, and religious +malevolence might not have received the gratification +and support it has received had this been the +rule of judgment and the guide to methods of +treatment, but our social consciousness would have +been of a superior texture than is now the case. +And one may ask whether there is any human +action conceivable for which an adequate cause +cannot be found in temperament or education or +circumstances, or in a combination of the three? +It would tax any one's ingenuity to name an action +that lies outside the scope of these influences. +Temperament, education, circumstances, are the +great and controlling conditions of human action, +and only in proportion as this is recognized and +acted upon do we approach a science of human +nature and begin to realize methods of profitable +modification.</p> + +<p>Against Determinism Dr. Martineau argues that +"the moral life dwells exclusively in the voluntary<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">{60}</a></span> +sphere," and also that "impulses of spontaneous +action do not constitute character." The first of +these statements is at least very debatable, +although it may turn upon a matter of definition. +But the second statement is distinctly inaccurate. +One may assert the exact opposite, and instead of +saying that the impulses of spontaneous action do +not constitute character, argue that they are the +truest indications of character. Of course, from +one point of view, all that a man does, whether it +be spontaneous or reflective, must be equally the +expression of the whole man. But from another +point of view the more permanent and enduring +characteristics of a man may be overborne by a +passing flood of emotion or by a casual combination +of unusual circumstances. By these means an +habitually mean man may be roused to acts of +generosity, an habitual thief roused to acts of +honesty. Long reflection may cause a person to +decide this or that, when his spontaneous impulses +are in the contrary direction. And while these +reflections and floods of emotion are equally with +the spontaneous impulses part of a given personality, +yet it will hardly be disputed that the latter +are the more deeply seated, will express themselves +in a more uniform manner, and are thus a truer +and more reliable index to the character of the +person with whom we are dealing.</p> + +<p>How far we are to accept morality as dwelling +exclusively in the voluntary, that is the intentional, +sphere, is, as I have said, largely a matter of +definition. We may so define morality that it shall +cover only intentional acts, in which case the state<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">{61}</a></span>ment +must be accepted, or we can define morality +in a wider sense, as covering all action by means +of which desirable relations between people are +maintained, in which case the statement is not true. +For we should then be committed to the curious +position that all moral development tends to make +man less moral. To have the quality of voluntariness +an act must be consciously performed with +a particular end in view. But a large part of the +more important functions of life do not come under +this category, while a still larger portion are only +semi-voluntary. The whole set of instincts that +cluster round the family, the feelings which urge +human beings to seek others' society, and which +are the essential conditions of all social phenomena, +do not properly come under the head of volition. +Our conduct in any of these directions may easily +be justified by reason, but it would be absurd to +argue that there is any intentional choice involved.</p> + +<p>Moreover, the chief aim of education, of the +moralization of character, is to divest actions of +their quality of reflectiveness or intention. Our +aim here is so to fashion character that it will +unquestioningly and instinctively place itself on the +right side. This is a force that operates on all +individuals more or less, and from the cradle to the +grave. Family influences curb and fashion the +egotism of the child until there is an unconscious +and often unreasoning adherence to the family +circle. Social influences continue the work and +train the individual into an instinctive harmony, +more or less complete with the structure of the +society to which he belongs. The mere repetition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">{62}</a></span> +of a particular action involves the formation of a +habit, and habit is meaningless in the absence of +a modified nerve structure which reacts in a special +manner. Persistence in right action, therefore, no +matter how consciously it may be performed in its +initial stages, inevitably passes over into unconscious +or instinctive action. And let it be noted, +too, that it is only when this change has been +brought about that a person can be said to be a +thoroughly moralized character. It is not the man +who does right after a long internal struggle that +is most moral, but the one with whom doing right +is the most imperative of organic necessities. We +praise the man who does right after struggle, but +chiefly because of our admiration at the triumph +of right over wrong, or because his weakness cries +for support, or because he has in him the making +of a more perfect character. But to place him as +the superior of one whose right doing is the +efflorescence of his whole nature is to misunderstand +the ethical problem. And equally to confine +morality to merely voluntary or intentional action is +to truncate the sphere of morals to an extent that +would meet with the approval of very few writers on +ethics. In brief, one may not merely say with +Lessing, "Determinism has nothing to fear from +the side of morals," one may add that it is only +on the theory of Determinism that the moralization +of character becomes a rational possibility.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">{63}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="PROFESSOR_JAMES" id="PROFESSOR_JAMES"></a>V.<br /> +PROFESSOR JAMES ON "THE DILEMMA OF +DETERMINISM."</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">We</span> have seen in what has gone before how much +of the case for Free-Will is based upon the wrong +use of language, and upon a display of petulance +arising from the degree to which it is assumed that +the universe ought to fulfil certain <i>a priori</i> expectations. +In this last respect the Volitionist behaves +as if he were on a kind of shopping excursion, with +full liberty to purchase or reject the goods brought +out for inspection. Both of these points are well +illustrated in an apology for Indeterminism offered +by Professor William James, and although in +examining his argument it may be necessary to +repeat in substance some of the arguments already +used, this will not be without its value in enabling +the reader to realize the shifts to which the defender +of Free-Will is compelled to resort. In justice to +Professor James, however, it is only fair to point +out that it is not quite clear that he is thoroughly +convinced of the position he sees fit to state. Much +of his argument reads as though he were merely +stating a speculation that might prove valuable, but +which might also turn out valueless. Still, whatever +conviction he has, or had, appears to lean to the +side of Indeterminism, and I shall accordingly deal +with his argument as though he were quite convinced +of its soundness.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">{64}</a></span> +In his chief work, <cite>The Principles of Psychology</cite>, +Professor James took up the perfectly sane position +that a man would be foolish not to espouse "the +great scientific postulate" that the prediction of +all things without exception must be possible, and +drew a proper distinction between what is ideally +possible—that is to complete knowledge—and what +is actually possible to incomplete knowledge. In a +later deliverance he, for the time at least, forsakes +this position and champions a case which rests for +its coherence very largely upon the neglect of those +precautions previously insisted on.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> To suit the +necessities of the argument the Determinist is made +to say things that I think few, if any, determinists +ever dreamed of saying, while certain leading words +are used with a meaning obviously framed to meet +the requirements of the case.</p> + +<p>At the outset of his essay Professor James +remarks that if a certain formula—in this case the +Determinist formula—"for expressing the nature +of the world violates my moral demands, I shall +feel as free to throw it overboard, or at least to +doubt it, as if it disappointed my demand for +uniformity of sequence." And he proceeds to +argue that all our scientific "laws" are ideal constructions, +built up in order to satisfy certain +demands of our nature. Uniformity in nature is +thus as much a formula framed to this end as is Free-Will. +"If this be admitted," he says, "we can +debate on even terms."</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">{65}</a></span> +Unfortunately for the Professor's argument the +two instances are not analogous—not, at least, in +the direction required. The sense of causality is +not something that is innate in human nature. +Children at an early age hardly possess it, and +primitive man has it in only a very vague manner. +The conviction that all things are bound together in +terms of causation is one that belongs, even to-day, +to the educated, thoughtful mind. At any rate it is +a conviction that has been forced upon the human +mind by the sheer pressure of experience. It is a +growth consequent upon the mind's intercourse with +the objective universe. And its validity is not called +into question. On the other hand, this assumed +"moral demand" for "Free-Will" is the very +point in dispute. Whether there is such a demand, +and if so is it a legitimate one, are the questions +upon which the discussion turns. And it will not +do for Professor James to claim Free-Will in the +name of certain "moral demands" and reserve the +right to throw overboard any theory that does not +grant them. Man's moral nature, equally with his +intellectual nature, must in the last resort yield to +facts. It will not do to exalt into a moral instinct +what may be no more than a personal idiosyncrasy. +There is certainly no more than this in such +expressions as "something must be fatally +unreasonable, absurd, and wrong in the world," or +"I deliberately refuse to keep on terms of loyalty +with the universe," if certain things turn out to +be true. Such phrases are completely out of place +in a scientific enquiry. The universe will remain +what it is whether we call it absurd or rational,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">{66}</a></span> +and may even survive the raising of the standard of +revolt by so eminent a psychologist as Professor +James, to whom we would commend, were he still +alive, Schopenhauer's profound remark that there +are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations +of phenomena.</p> + +<p>What, now, is the insuperable dilemma which +Professor James places before upholders of Determinism? +The whole of it turns out to be little more +than a play upon the words "possible" and +"actual." Determinism, he says, professes that +"those parts of the universe already laid down +absolutely appoint and decree (Why 'appoint' and +'decree'? Why not the impersonal word +'determine?') what the other parts shall be." The +future is determined by the past; and given the +past, only one future is possible. Indeterminism +says that "the parts have a certain amount of +loose play on one another, so that the laying down +of one of them does not necessarily determine what +the others shall be." Thus, still following Professor +James's exposition, given a special instance, both +sides admit the occurrence of a volition. The +Determinist asserts that no other volition could +have occurred. The Indeterminist asserts that +another volition might have occurred, other things +remaining the same. And, asks the Professor, can +science tell us which is correct? His reply is, No. +"How can any amount of assurance that something +actually happened give us the least grain +of information as to whether another thing might or +might not have happened in its place? Only facts +can be proved by other facts. With things that are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">{67}</a></span> +possibilities and not facts, facts have no concern."</p> + +<p>The position may be made clearer by taking the +Professor's own illustration. When, he says, I +leave this lecture hall I may go home <i>via</i> Divinity +Avenue, or traverse Oxford Street. It is a matter +of chance which route is selected. But assume that +by some miracle, after having walked down Divinity +Avenue, ten minutes of time are annihilated, and +reaching the Hall door again Oxford Street is the +route selected. Spectators thus have two alternative +universes. One universe with the Professor +walking through Divinity Avenue, the other with +him walking through Oxford Street. If the +spectators are Determinists they will believe only +one universe to have been from eternity possible. +But, asks Professor James, looking outwardly at +these two universes, can anyone say which is the +accidental and which is the necessary one? "In +other words, either universe <em>after the fact</em> and once +there would, to our means of observation and understanding, +appear just as rational as the other." +There is no means by which we can distinguish +chance from a rational necessity. A universe which +allows a certain loose play of the parts is as +rational as one which submits to the most rigid +determinism.</p> + +<p>Before dealing with the above, it is necessary +to take another phrase on which much of the above +argument depends. Professor James says that the +stronghold of the Determinist sentiment is +antipathy to the idea of "Chance," and chance is +a notion not to be entertained by any sane mind. +And the sting, he says, seems to rest on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">{68}</a></span> +assumption that chance is something positive, and +if a thing happens by chance it must needs be +irrational and preposterous. But I am not aware +that any scientific Determinist ever used "chance" +as being a positive term at all. Certainly the last +thing the present writer would dream of doing +would be to predicate chance of any portion of the +objective universe whatsoever. The only legitimate +use of the word is in reference to <em>the state of our +knowledge concerning phenomena</em>. To say that a +thing chanced, or happened by chance, is only +saying that we are not aware of the causes that +produced it. We say nothing of the thing itself, +we only express the state of our mind in relation +to it.</p> + +<p>Professor James says all you mean by "chance" +is that a thing is not guaranteed, it may fall out +otherwise. Not guaranteed by our knowledge +about the thing, certainly; in any other sense, his +definition seems invented for the express purpose +of bolstering up his hypothesis. For, he says, a +chance thing means that the general system of +things has no hold on it. It appears in relation +to other things, but it escapes their determining +influence, and appears as "a free gift." Thus +whether he walked down Divinity Avenue or Oxford +Street was a matter of chance; and the future of +the world is full of similar chances—events that may +take one of several forms, either of which is consistent +with the whole.</p> + +<p>We now have the essence of Professor James's +case, and can consider it in detail. First of all we +may note the curiously double sense in which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">{69}</a></span> +Professor James uses the word "fact" and the +agility with which he skips from one meaning to +another, as it suits his argument. In a broad and +general sense a mental fact is as much a fact +as any other fact. A man riding on horseback +is a fact. My vision or conception of a horse with +the head of a man is equally a fact, though nothing +like it exists in nature. We should discriminate +between the two by saying that one is a mental +fact strictly relative to a particular mind, the other +is an objective fact relative to all minds normally +constituted. Now science does not deny possibilities +as <em>mental facts</em>. But it would be a very queer +science indeed that allowed all sorts of possibilities +of a given group of phenomena <em>under identical +conditions</em>. Like "chance," the possibilities of +the Universe are strictly relative to our knowledge +concerning it. If opposite things appear equally +possible, it is only because we are not sufficiently +conversant with the processes to say which thing is +certain. A universe with Professor James walking +down Divinity Avenue appears as orderly and as +natural as one with him parading Oxford Street. +But this is because we cannot unravel the complex +conditions that may determine the selection of one +route or the other. Or if it be said in reply, that +the walker is unaware of any choice in the matter, +the answer is that there is present the desire to +get away from the lecture hall and arrive at home, +and this is strong enough to make the choice of +means to that end unimportant. If the choice lay +between walking down a sunlit street or wading +through a mile of water, five feet deep, while the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">{70}</a></span> +latter would still remain a possibility, since it could +be done were the inducement to do it strong +enough, there is not much doubt as to what the +choice would actually be.</p> + +<p>The complete reply therefore to Professor James's +illustration is that from the standpoint of mere +possibility, bearing in mind the proper significance +of possibility, opposite alternatives may be equally +real. We can, that is, conceive conditions under +which a certain thing may occur, and we can conceive +another set of conditions under which exactly +the opposite may occur. And either alternative +presents us with a universe that is equally +"rational," because in either case we vary the +co-operating conditions in order to produce the +imagined consequence. But given a complete +knowledge of all the co-operating conditions, and +not only do two views of the universe cease to be +equally rational, but one of them ceases to be even +conceivable. For let us note that the resultant of +any calculation is no more and no less than a +synthesis of the factors that are included in the +calculation. If we do not understand the factors +included in a given synthesis it will be a matter of +"chance" what the resultant may be. But if we +do understand the nature of the factors, and the +consequence of their synthesis, possibility and +actuality become convertible terms. Finally, +whether a man on leaving a lecture hall turns to +the right or the left appears, under ordinary conditions, +equally rational and natural only because +we are aware that it may be a matter of indifference +which direction he takes, and in that case his action<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">{71}</a></span> +will be governed by the simple desire to get away, +or to get to a particular spot. It is a simple deduction +from experience presented by Professor James +in a needlessly confusing manner.</p> + +<p>The next, and practically the only example cited +by Professor James to prove that this world is a +world of "chances," is concerned with a question +of morals. We constantly, he says, have occasion +to make "judgments of regret." In illustration of +this, he cites the case of a particularly brutal +murder, and adds, "We feel that, although a +perfect mechanical fit to the rest of the universe, +it is a bad moral fit, and that something else would +really have been better in its place." But "calling +a thing bad means, if it means anything at all, that +the thing ought not to be, that something else +ought to be in its stead." If Determinism denies +this it is defining the universe as a place "in which +what ought to be is impossible," and this lands us +in pessimism, or if we are to escape pessimism we +can only do so by abandoning the judgment of +regret. But if our regrets are necessitated nothing +else can be in their place, and the universe is what +it was before—a place in which what ought to be +appears impossible. Murder and treachery cannot +be good without regret being bad, regret cannot +be good without murder and treachery being bad. +As both, however, are foredoomed, something must +be fatally wrong and absurd in the world.</p> + +<p>Now, I must confess all this seems a deal of +bother concerning a fairly simple matter. Indeed, +Professor James seems to be engaged in raising a +dust and then complaining of the murkiness of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">{72}</a></span> +atmosphere. Coming from a writer of less +standing I might, in view of what has been said +elsewhere in this essay, have left the reply to the +careful reader's understanding of the subject. But +from so eminent a psychologist as William James, +silence might well be construed as deterministic +inability to reply to the position laid down.</p> + +<p>In the first place, I may be pardoned for again +reminding the reader that, in this connection, +"ought" stands upon precisely the same level as +"possible." Whether we say that a man ought +to do a certain thing, or that it is possible for him +to do a certain thing, we are making identical +statements, for no one would dream of saying that +a man ought to do that which it is impossible for +him to perform. When we say that murder and +treachery ought not to be, we do not imply—if we +use language properly—that these are not as much +part of the cosmic order, and as much the expression +of co-operating conditions, as are kindness and +loyalty. It is saying no more than that in our +judgment human nature may be so trained and conditioned +as to practise neither murder nor +treachery. We are expressing a judgment as to +what our ideal of human nature is, and our ideal +of what human nature should be is based upon +what experience has taught us concerning its +possibilities. Man's "judgment of regret" is +justifiable and admirable, not because he recognizes +that the past could have been different from what it +was, but because it furnishes him with the requisite +experience for a better direction of action in the +future, and because the feeling of regret is itself<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">{73}</a></span> +one of the determining conditions that will decide +conduct in the future.</p> + +<p>"The question," says Professor James, "is of +things, not of eulogistic names for them." With +this I cordially agree; but in that case what are +we to make of the following:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"The only consistent way of representing +... a world whose parts may affect one +another through their conduct being either +good or bad is the indeterminate way. What +interest, zest, or excitement can there be in +achieving the right way, unless we are enabled +to feel that the wrong way is also a possible +and a natural way—nay, more, a menacing and +an imminent way? And what sense can there +be in condemning ourselves for taking the +wrong way, unless we need have done nothing +of the sort, unless the right way was open to +us as well? I cannot understand the willingness +to act, no matter how we feel, without the +belief that acts are really good or bad. I cannot +understand the belief that an act is bad, +without regret at its happening. I cannot +understand regret without the admission of +real genuine possibilities in the world."</p></blockquote> + +<p>Eliminate from this all that is matter of common +agreement between Determinists and Indeterminists, +and what have we left but sheer verbal +confusion? The pleasurable feeling that results +from a sense of achievement is real no matter what +are the lines on which the universe is constructed.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">{74}</a></span> +One might as reasonably ask, Why feel a greater +interest in a first-class orchestral performance, +than in the harmonic outrages of a hurdy-gurdy, +since both are, from the physical side, vibratory +phenomena? And is it not clear, to repeat a truth +already emphasized, that a most important factor +in our condemning ourselves for doing a wrong +action is the fact that we have done so. It is one +of the determining conditions of doing better +actions in future. Of course, Professor James +cannot understand the belief that an act is bad, +without regret at its happening. Neither can +anyone else, for the simple reason that one involves +the other. The statement is as much a truism +as is the one that we can have no willingness to +act unless we believe that acts are either good or +bad. Equally true is it that regret implies real +possibilities in the world—not always, though, for +we may regret death or the radiation into extra +terrestrial space of solar energy without believing +that the prevention of either is possible. But our +possibilities in relation to conduct do not, as the +argument implies, relate to the past, but to the +future. Indeed, the sense of possibility would be +morally worthless were it otherwise.</p> + +<p>Finally, and this brings me to what is one of the +cardinal weaknesses of so much of the writing on +psychology, Professor James's argument is vitiated +by non-recognition of the fact that regret and +satisfaction, praise and blame, with most of the +cardinal moral qualities, are <em>social</em> in their origin +and application. They represent the reaction of +our social feelings against anti-social conduct, or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">{75}</a></span> +their expression of satisfaction at conduct of an +opposite character. They are consequently the +creations, not of an indwelling "will," but of an +outdwelling social relationship. They are not +impressed by the "ego" upon the world, they are +impressed by the world upon the ego. Character +is not something that each individual brings ready +fashioned to the service of society; it is something +that society itself creates. It has been fashioned +by countless generations of social evolution, and, +in the main, that evolution has of necessity placed +due emphasis upon those intellectual and moral +qualities on which social welfare depends.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">{76}</a></span></p> + +<h2>VI.<br /> +<a name="NATURE_IMPLICATIONS_RESPONSIBILITY" id="NATURE_IMPLICATIONS_RESPONSIBILITY"></a> +THE NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS OF +RESPONSIBILITY.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">If</span> Hume was not right in asserting that a few +intelligible definitions would put an end to the Free-Will +controversy, his error lay in assuming a greater +receptivity of mind than most people possess. For +it may safely be asserted that once the legitimate +meanings of the terms employed are acknowledged, +and they are properly applied to the matter in +dispute, it may be shown that the opponents of +Determinism have been beating the air. The Determinism +they attack is not the Determinism that +is either professed or defended. The consequences +they forecast follow only from a distorted, and often +meaningless, use of the terms employed. Instead +of the Determinist denying the moral and mental +value of certain qualities of which the Indeterminist +announces himself the champion, he admits +their value, gives them a definite meaning, and +proves that it is only by an assumption of the truth +of the cardinal principle of Determinism that they +have any reality. This has already been shown to +be true in the case of Freedom, Choice, Deliberation, +etc.; it remains to pursue the same method +with such conceptions as praise and blame or +punishment and reward, and responsibility.</p> + +<p>The charge is, again, that Determinism robs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">{77}</a></span> +praise and blame and responsibility of all meaning, +and reduces them to mere verbal expressions which +some may mistake for the equivalents of reality, +but which clearer thinkers will estimate at their +true worth. What is the use of praising or blaming +if each one does what heredity, constitution, and +environment compels? Why punish a man for +being what he is? Why hold him responsible for +the expressions of a character provided for him, +and for the influence of an environment which he +had no part in forming? So the string of questions +run on. None of them, it may safely be said, would +ever be asked if all properly realized the precise +meaning and application of the terms employed. +For as with the previous terms examined, it is an +acceptance of Indeterminism that would rob these +words of all value. Rationally conceived they are +not only consonant with Determinism, but each of +them implies it.</p> + +<p>Of the four terms mentioned above—Praise, +Blame, Punishment, and Responsibility, the +cardinal and governing one is the last. It will be +well, therefore, to endeavour to fix this with some +degree of clearness.</p> + +<p>To commence with we may note that in contra-distinction +to "freedom" where the testimony of +consciousness is illegitimately invoked, a consciousness +of responsibility is essential to its +existence. A person in whom it was manifestly +impossible to arouse such a consciousness would +be unhesitatingly declared to be irresponsible. +There is here, consequently, both the fact of +responsibility and our consciousness of it that calls<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">{78}</a></span> +for explanation. And both require for an adequate +explanation a larger area than is offered by mere +individual psychology. Indeed, so long as we +restrict ourselves to the individual we cannot understand +either the fact or the consciousness of responsibility. +By limiting themselves in this manner +some Determinists have been led to deny responsibility +altogether. The individual, they have said, +does not create either his own organism or its +environment, and consequently all reasonable basis +for responsibility disappears. To which there is +the effective reply that the datum for responsibility +is found in the nature of the organism and in the +possibility of its being affected by certain social +forces, and not in the absolute origination of its +own impulses and actions. It is playing right +into the hands of the Indeterminist to deny so +large and so important a social phenomenon as +responsibility. And to the Indeterminist attack, +that if action is the expression of heredity, +organism, and environment, there is no room for +responsibility, there is the effective reply that it +is precisely because the individual's actions are +the expression of all the forces brought to bear +upon him that he may be accounted responsible. +The Determinist has often been too ready to take +the meanings and implications of words from his +opponent, instead of checking the sense in which +they were used.</p> + +<p>The general sense of responsibility—omitting all +secondary meanings—is that of accountability, to +be able to reply to a charge, or to be able to +answer a claim made upon us. This at once<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">{79}</a></span> +gives us the essential characteristic of responsibility, +and also stamps it as a phenomenon of +social ethics. A man living on a desert island +would not be responsible, unless we assume his +responsibility to deity; and even here we have the +essential social fact—relation to a person—reintroduced. +It is our relations to others, that and +the influence of our actions upon others, combined +with the possibility of our natures being affected +by the praise or censure of the social body to +which we belong, which sets up the fact of +responsibility. Conduct creates a social reaction, +good or bad, agreeable or disagreeable, and the +reacting judgment of society awakens in each of us +a consciousness of responsibility, more or less +acute, and more or less drastic, to society at large. +The individual sees himself in the social mirror. +His nature is fashioned by the social medium, his +personal life becomes an expression of the social +life. Just as the social conscience, in the shape of +a legal tribunal, judges each for actions that are +past, so the larger social conscience, as expressed +in a thousand and one different forms, customs, +and associations, judges us for those desires and +dispositions that may result in action in the future. +Responsibility as a phenomenon of social +psychology is obvious, educative, inescapable, and +admirable. Responsibility as a phenomenon of +individual psychology, whether from the Determinist +or Indeterminist point of view, is positively +meaningless.</p> + +<p>Taking, then, responsibility as a fact of social +life, with its true significance of accountability, let<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">{80}</a></span> +us see its meaning on deterministic lines. For the +sake of clearness we will first take legal responsibility +as illustrating the matter. In law a man is +accounted guilty provided he knows the law he is +breaking, and also that he is capable of +appreciating the consequences of his actions. A +further consideration of no mean importance is +that the consequences attending the infringement +of the law are assumed to be sufficiently serious +to counterbalance the inducements to break the +regulation. And as all citizens are assumed to +know the law, we may confine our attention to the +last two aspects. What, then, is meant by ability +to appreciate consequences? There can be no +other meaning than the capacity to create an ideal +presentment of the penalties attaching to certain +actions. Every promise of reward or threat of +punishment assumes this, and assumes also that +provided the ideal presentment is strong enough, +certain general results will follow. It is on this +principle alone that punishments are proportioned +to offences, and that certain revisions of penalties +take place from time to time. Negatively the same +thing is shown by the fact that young children, +idiots, and lunatics are not legally held responsible +for their actions. The ground here is that the +power to represent ideally the full consequences of +actions is absent, or operates in an abnormal +manner. Moreover, the whole line of proof to +establish insanity in a court of law is that a person +is not amenable to certain desires and impulses in +the same manner as are normally constituted +people.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">{81}</a></span> +Substantially the same thing is seen if we take +the fact of responsibility in non-legal matters. A +very young child, incapable of ideally representing +consequences, is not considered a responsible +being. An older child has a limited responsibility +in certain simple matters. As it grows older, and +growth brings with it the power of more fully +appreciating the consequence of actions, its +responsibility increases in the home, in the school, +in business, social, religious, and political circles +it is held accountable for its conduct, in proportion +as the power of estimating the consequences of +actions is assumed. In other words, we assume +not that there is at any stage an autonomous or +self-directing "will" in operation, but that a +particular quality of motive will operate at certain +stages of mental development, and the whole of +the educative process, in the home, the school, +and in society, aims at making these motives +effective. That is, the whole fact of responsibility +assumes as a datum the very condition that the +Indeterminist regards as destroying responsibility +altogether. He argues that if action is the expression +of character, responsibility is a farce. But it +is precisely because action is the expression of +character that responsibility exists. When the law, +or when society, calls a man to account for something +he has done, it does not deny that had he +possessed a different character he would have acted +differently. It does not assert that at the time of +action he could have helped doing what he did. Both +may be admitted. What it does say is that having +a character of such and such a kind certain things<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">{82}</a></span> +are bound to follow. But inasmuch as that +character may be modified by social opinion or +social coercion, inasmuch as it will respond to +certain influences brought to bear upon it, it is a +responsible character, and so may be held accountable +for its actions.</p> + +<p>There is, therefore, nothing incompatible between +Determinism and Responsibility. The incompatibility +lies between Indeterminism and +Responsibility. What meaning can we attach to +it, on what ground can we call a person to account, +if our calling him to account is not one of the considerations +that will affect his conduct? Grant +that a consciousness of responsibility decides how +a person shall act, and the principle of Determinism +is admitted. Deny that a consciousness of +responsibility determines action, and the phrase +loses all meaning and value. The difficulty arises, +as has been said, by ignoring the fact that responsibility +is of social origin, and in looking for an +explanation in individual psychology. It would, of +course, be absurd to make man responsible for +being what he is, but so long as he is amenable +to the pressure of normal social forces he is +responsible or accountable for what he may be. +Whatever his character be, so long as it has the +capacity of being affected by social pressure, it is +a responsible character. And this is the sole condition +that makes responsibility intelligible.</p> + +<p>Having said this, it is not difficult to see the +place of punishment and reward, or praise and +blame, in the Determinist scheme of things. +Another word than punishment might be selected,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">{83}</a></span> +and one that would be without its unpleasant +associations, but on the whole it is advisable +perhaps to retain the word in order to see the +nature of the problem clearly. Of course, punishment +in the sense of the infliction of pain merely +because certain actions have been committed, no +Determinist would countenance. So far as punishment +is inflicted in this spirit of sheer retaliation +it serves only to gratify feelings of malevolence. +A society that punishes merely to gratify resentment +is only showing that it can be as brutal +collectively as individuals can be singly. And if +punishment begins and ends with reference to the +past, then it is certainly revolting to inflict pain +upon a person because he has done what education +and organization impelled him to do. So far one +can agree with Professor Sidgwick that when a +man's conduct is "compared with a code, to the +violation of which punishments are attached, the +question whether he really could obey the rule by +which he is judged is obvious and inevitable." But +when he goes on to reply "If he could not, it +seems contrary to our sense of justice to punish +him," the reply is, Not if the code is one that +normal human nature can obey, and the individual +one who can be modified in a required direction in +both his own interest and the interest of others. +For if our punishment is prospective instead of +retrospective, or at least retrospective only so far +as to enable us to understand the character of the +individual with whom we are dealing, and using +punishment as one of the means of securing a +desirable modification of character, then punish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">{84}</a></span>ment +is merged in correction, and receives a complete +justification upon Deterministic lines.</p> + +<p>The problem is comparatively simple. Actions +being decided by motives, the problem with a +socially defective character is how to secure the +prevalence of desires that will issue in desirable +conduct. A man steals; the problem then is, How +can we so modify the character of which stealing +is the expression, so that we may weaken the +desire to steal and strengthen feelings that will +secure honesty of action? On the lower plane +society resorts to threats of pains and penalties, +so that when the desire to steal arises again, the +knowledge that certain measures will be taken +against the offender will arrest this desire. This +is one of the principal grounds on which a measure +like the First Offenders Act is based. On a higher +plane the approval and respect of society serve +to awaken a positive liking for honesty and the +formation of desirable mental habits. Praise and +blame rest upon a precisely similar basis. Man +being the socialized animal he is, the approbation +and disapprobation of his fellows must always exert +considerable influence on his conduct. The memory +of censure passed or of praise bestowed acts as +one of the many influences that will determine +conduct when the critical moment for action arrives. +Man does not always consciously put the question +of what his social circle will think of his actions, +but this feeling rests upon a deeper and more secure +basis than that of consciousness. It has been, so +to speak, worked into his nature by all the generations +of social life that have preceded his existence,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">{85}</a></span> +and to escape it means to put off all that is distinctly +human in his character. Every time we +praise or blame an action we are helping to mould +character, for both will serve as guides in the +future. And it is just because at the moment of +action a person "could not help doing" what he +did that there is any reasonable justification for +either approval or censure. Social approval and +disapproval become an important portion of the +environment to which the human being must +perforce adapt himself.</p> + +<p>What use could there be in punishing or blaming +a man if his actions are determined, not by +realizable motives, but by a mysterious will that in +spite of our endeavours remains uninfluenced? If +neither the promise nor the recollection of punishment +creates feelings that will determine conduct, +then one might as well whip the wind. Its only +purpose is to gratify our own feelings of anger or +malevolence. It is equally futile to look for the +cause of wrong-doing in education, organization, or +environment. For in proportion as we recognize any +or all of these factors as determining conduct we are +deserting the Indeterminist position, and relinquishing +the "freedom" of the will. If Indeterminism +be true we are forced to believe that although as a +consequence of ill-conduct evil feelings may arise +with greater frequency, yet they must be wholly ineffective +as influencing action. It cannot even be +argued that certain motives offer stronger attraction +than others to the will, for this in itself would be a +form of determinism. There is no middle course. +Either the "will" remains absolutely uninfluenced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">{86}</a></span> +by threat of punishment or desire for praise, serenely +indifferent to the conflict of desires, and proof +against the influence of education, or it forms a +part of the causative sequence and the truth of +Determinism is admitted. You cannot at the same +time hold that man does not act in accordance with +the strongest motive, and decide that the "will" +maintains its freedom by deciding which motive +shall be the strongest—its own determination not +being the product of previous training. One need, +indeed, only state the Indeterminist position plainly +to see its inherent absurdity.</p> + +<p>If ever in any case the argument <i>ad absurdum</i> was +applicable it is surely here. It may safely be said +that the larger part of the life of each of us is passed +in anticipating the future in the light of experience. +But if "Free-Will" be a fact, on what ground can +we forecast the future. If motives do not determine +conduct, any prophecy of what certain people +may do in a given situation is futile. The will +being indetermined, what they have done in the past +is no guide as to what they will do in the future. If +motives did not decide then they will not decide +now. Whether we read backward or forward +makes no difference. We have no right to say that +the actions of certain statesmen prove them to have +been animated by the desire for wealth or power. +That would imply Determinism. We cannot say +that because a murder has been committed a certain +person who bore the deceased ill-will is rightly suspected. +This is assuming that conduct is determined +by motives. If we see a person jump into the +river, we have no right to argue that depressed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">{87}</a></span> +health, or financial worry, or impending social disgrace, +has caused him to commit suicide. The +mother may as easily murder her child as nurse it. +The workman may labour as well for a bare pittance +as for a comfortable wage. A man outside a house +in the early hours of the morning, armed with a +dark lantern and a jemmy, may have no desire to +commit a burglary. A person with a game bag +and a gun furnishes no reliable data for believing +that he intends to shoot something. In all of these +cases, and in hundreds of others, if "free-will" be +a fact we have no right to argue from actions to +motives, or infer motives from actions. Motives do +not rule, and we are witnessing the uncaused and +unaccountable vagaries of an autonomous will.</p> + +<p>It is sometimes said that no matter how convinced +a Determinist one may be, one always acts as though +the will were free. This, so far from being true, is +the reverse of what really happens. In all the affairs +of life people of all shades of opinion concerning +Determinism really act as though "Free-Will" +had no existence. It would, indeed, be strange +were it otherwise. Facts are more insistent than +theories, and in the last resort it is the nature of +things which determines the course of our actions. +Nature, while permitting considerable latitude in +matters of theory or opinion, allows comparatively +little play in matters of conduct. And it may be +asserted that a society which failed to acknowledge +in its conduct the principle of Determinism would +stand but small chance of survival. As a matter +of fact, when it comes to practical work the theory +of "Free-Will" is ignored and the theory of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">{88}</a></span> +Determinism acted upon. The unfortunate thing is +that the maintenance of "Free-Will" in the sphere +of opinion serves to check the wholesome application +of the opposite principle. Theory is used to +check action instead of serving its proper function +as a guide to conduct.</p> + +<p>Still, it is instructive to note to what extent in the +sphere of practice the principle of Determinism is +admitted. In dealing with the drink question, for +instance, temperance reformers argue that a diminution +in the number of public-houses, and the creation +of opportunities for healthy methods of enjoyment, +will diminish temptation and weaken the desire for +alcoholic stimulants. In the training of children +stress is rightly laid upon the importance of the right +kind of associates, the power of education, and of +healthy physical surroundings. With adults, the +beneficial influences of fresh air, good food, well-built +houses, open spaces, and healthy conditions of +labour have become common-places of sociology. In +every rational biography attention is paid to the +formative influences of parents, friends, and general +environment. Medical men seek the cause of frames +of mind in nervous structure, and predisposition +to physical, mental, and moral disease in heredity. +Statisticians point to absolute uniformity of general +human action under certain social conditions. +Moralists point to the power of ideals on people's +minds. Religious teachers emphasize the power of +certain teachings in reducing particular habits. In +all these cases no allowance whatever is made for +the operation of an undetermined will. The +motive theory of action may not be consciously in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">{89}</a></span> +the minds of all, but it is everywhere and at all +times implied in practice.</p> + +<p>In strict truth, we cannot undertake a single affair +in life without making the assumption that people +will act in accordance with certain motives, and that +these in turn will be the outcome of specific desires. +If I journey from here to Paris I unconsciously +assume that certain forces—the desire to retain a +situation, to earn a living, to satisfy a sense of duty—will +cause all the officials connected with boat and +train service to carry out their duties in a given +manner. If I appeal for the protection of the police +I am again counting upon certain motives influencing +the official mind in a particular manner. +All commercial transactions rest upon the same unconscious +assumption. A merchant who places an +order with a firm in Russia, America, or Japan, or +who sends goods abroad, counts with absolute confidence +upon certain desires and mental states so +influencing a number of people with whom he has +no direct connection, that they will co-operate in +landing the goods at the point desired. Or if the +goods are not transmitted as desired, it is not +because the principle upon which he relied is invalid, +but because other desires have operated in a more +powerful manner. A general commanding an army +acts on precisely the same principle. The ideal of +duty, of the honour of the regiment, the desire for +distinction, are all counted upon as being powerful +enough to serve as motives that will cause men to +join in battle, storm a risky position, or take part +in a forlorn hope. History is read upon the same +principle. The statement that Nero was cruel, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">{90}</a></span> +Henry the Eighth was of an amatory nature, that +Charles I. was tyrannical, or that Louis the Fifteenth +was licentious, could not be made unless we argue +that their actions imply the existence of certain +motives. That the motive theory of the will is +true is admitted in practice by all. The Indeterminist +admits it even in his appeal to "Liberty." +He is counting upon the desire for freedom +(sociologically) as being strong enough to lead +people to reject a theory which denies its applicability +to morals.</p> + +<p>Human nature becomes a chaos if Determinism is +denied. Neither a science of human conduct nor +of history is possible in its absence; for both assume +a fundamental identity of human nature beneath all +the comparatively superficial distinctions of colour, +creed, or national divisions. The determination of +the influence of climate, food, inter-tribal or international +relations, of the power of ideals—moral, +religious, military, national, etc.—are all so many +exercises in the philosophy of Determinism. In +none of these directions do we make the least allowance +for the operation of an uncaused "will." We +say with absolute confidence that given a people +with a military environment, and either its discomforts +produce an anti-militarist feeling, or its +glamour evokes a strong militarist feeling. So +with all other consideration that comes before us. +And as Determinism enables us to read and understand +history and life, so it also provides a basis +upon which we can work for reform. In the belief +that certain influences will produce, in the main, a +particular result, we can lay our plans and work<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">{91}</a></span> +with every prospect of ultimate success. Instead of +our best endeavours being left at the mercy of an +undetermined "will," they take their place as part +of the determining influences that are moulding +human nature. Every action becomes a portion of +the environment with which each has to deal. More, +it becomes a portion of the agent's own environment, +a part of that ideal world in which we all more or +less live. And the heightened consciousness that +every action leaves a certain residuum for either +good or ill, supplies in itself one of the strongest +incentives for the exercise of self-control and furnishes +an unshakable basis for self-development.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">{92}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="DETERMINISM_CHARACTER" id="DETERMINISM_CHARACTER"></a> +VII.<br /> +DETERMINISM AND CHARACTER.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">In</span> spite of what has been said, it may be that a +protest will still be raised by some on behalf of +character. A man's character, it will be argued, is +an alienable personal possession. What he does +belongs to him in a sense that is peculiar to his +personality. In many important instances his +actions bear the stamp of individuality in so plain +a manner that while we cannot predict what he will +do, once it is done we recognize by the peculiar +nature of the action that it must have been done +by him and by none other. In painting, in music, +in literature, and in many other walks of life, we +are able to infer authorship by the personality +stamped upon the production. Moreover, nothing +that we can do or say will ever destroy the conviction +that my actions are <em>mine</em>. They proceed from <em>me</em>; +they are the expressions of <em>my</em> character; it is this +feeling that induces me to plead guilty to the charge +of responsibility, and this conviction remains after +all argument has been urged. But, it is further +asked, how can this be aught but an illusion if I am +not the real and determining cause of my conduct? +If I and my actions are the products of a converging +series of calculable or indetermined forces, are we +not compelled to dismiss this conviction as pure +myth? Must I not conclude that I am no more +the determining cause of my conduct than a stone +determines whether it shall fall to the ground or not?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">{93}</a></span> +And is not the cultivation of character, therefore, +an absurd futility?</p> + +<p>Now although the Determinist will dissent from +the conclusions of those who argue in this way, +with a great deal of the argument he would agree; +more than that, he would enforce the same line of +reasoning as a legitimate inference from his own +position. And he might also submit that it is only +by an acceptance of the deterministic position that +such reasoning can receive full justification.</p> + +<p>What do we mean by character? Suppose we +reply with T. H. Green by defining character as +the way in which a man seeks self-satisfaction.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> +We are next faced with the problem of accounting +for the different ways in which self-satisfaction is +sought. One man is a drunkard and another +temperate, one is benevolent and another grasping, +one is cruel and another kind; there are endless +diversities of human conduct, and all come within +the scope of Green's definition of character. We +have to look farther and deeper. A satisfactory +answer clearly cannot be found in the assumption +that each person's actions proceed from an +unfettered, autonomous will. The reason for the +choice would still have to be discovered. Nor will +it do to attribute the difference of choice to different +environmental influences in which the "self" is +placed. This would indeed be reducing the man to +the level of a machine, or to a lower level still. And +the same environmental influences do <em>not</em> produce +identical results. This is one of the commonest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">{94}</a></span> +facts of daily experience. Stimulus from the environment +is the essential condition of action, but +the precise nature of the action elicited is an affair +of the organism. If I am courageous by nature I +shall stay and face a threatened danger. If I am +cowardly I shall run away. Thus, while circumstances +are the cause of my acting, how I shall act +is in turn caused by my character, the net result +being due to their interaction. This seems so +obvious that it may well be accepted as a datum +common to both parties in the dispute.</p> + +<p>We may, then, freely grant the Indeterminist—what +he foolishly assumes is inconsistent with the +Deterministic position—that environment may be +modified by character, that a man is not the creature +of circumstances, if we restrict that word to external +circumstances, as is so often done. A man, we will +say, allowing for the influence of external circumstances, +acts according to his character. The +question then becomes, "What is his character? +How does he acquire it?<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> And whence the varieties +of character?" To these queries the only intelligible +reply is that a man's character represents his psychic +heritage, as his body represents his physical heritage, +both of them being subject to development and modification +by post-natal influences. Each one thus +brings a different psychic force, or a different +character, to bear upon the world around him. He<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">{95}</a></span> +is thus the author of his acts, not in the unintelligible +sense of absolutely originating the sequence that +proceeds from his actions, but in the rational sense +of being that point in the sequence that is represented +by his personality. And his actions bear +the stamp of his personality because had his antecedents +been different his actions would have varied +accordingly. Each is properly judged in terms of +character, because it is the character which determines +the form taken by the reaction of the +organism on the environment.</p> + +<p>We may go even further than this and say that it +is only actions which proceed from character that are +properly the subject of moral judgment. Let us +take a concrete illustration of this. A man distributes +a large sum of money among the inhabitants +of a town, some of it in the form of personal gifts +among its needy inhabitants, the rest in endowing +various institutions connected with its social and +municipal life. Twelve months later he comes +forward as candidate in a parliamentary election. +The question of his donations at once comes up for +judgment, and in defence he may plead that he was +only invited to contest the seat after the money was +given. How shall we determine what his motives +were? Obviously by an appeal to his character. +If he were well known as a wealthy person of recognized +benevolent disposition, it would be argued that +while his candidature would inevitably reap benefit +from his donations it was highly probable that in +giving the money he was only acting as one would +expect him to act. If, on the other hand, he was +well known as a person of a mean and grasping<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">{96}</a></span> +disposition, it would be concluded that the donation +was an attempt to bribe the electorate, his giving +the money so long before being an intelligent anticipation +of events. In either case we should be +appealing to character, and judging the man by +what of his character was known. Numerous +instances of a like kind might be given, but in +every case it would be found that we infer from an +action a particular kind of motive, and that our +judgment of the motive is determined by the character +of the individual. This is so far the case +that we are apt to mistrust our own judgment when +we find a benevolent person doing what looks like a +mean action, or a brave person committing what +looks like an act of cowardice. While action is thus—so +far as it is intentional—always the registration +of motive, and motive the expression of a preponderating +desire, the desire, whether it be licentious +or chaste, noble or ignoble, is the outcome of +character.</p> + +<p>Determinism thus finds a fit and proper place for +character in its philosophy of things. It does not +say that the fact or the consideration of character is +irrelevant; on the contrary, it says it is all-important. +And in saying this it challenges the position of the +Indeterminist by the implication that it is only on +lines of Determinism that character is important or +that it can be profitably cultivated. For consider +what is meant by saying that conduct implies and +proceeds from character. It clearly implies that a +man acts in this or that manner because he has been +in the habit of acting in this or that manner. We +do not gather grapes from thistles, and we do not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">{97}</a></span> +experience noble actions from a depraved character. +The actions of each are determined by the character +of each, and character is in turn the outcome of +psychic inheritance, plus the effects of the interaction +of organism and environment from the moment of +birth onward. Personal characteristics, honesty, +courage, truthfulness, loyalty, thus imply strictly +determined qualities. They are qualities determined +by the nature of the organism. They could +not be expressed unless the surrounding circumstances +were favourable to their expression; but +neither could they be manifested unless the character +was of a particular order. Conduct is, in +fact, always a product of the two things.</p> + +<p>Let us also note that it is this determination of +qualities that is implied when we speak of a good +or a bad, a strong or a weak character. We should +not call a man a good character who to-day fed a +starving child, and to-morrow kicked it from his +doorstep. We should describe him as, at best, a +person of an exceedingly variable disposition who +satisfied the caprice of the moment irrespective of +the feelings and needs of others. We should not +call a person strong who withstood a temptation one +hour and yielded to it the next. He would be described +as weak, and lacking the compelling force +of a stable disposition. It is also true that the +moralization of character is the more complete as +the determined nature of impulses is the more +evident. Most people would not only resent the +imputation of having committed a mean action, they +would also resent the likelihood of their committing +one. And in common speech, and in fact, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">{98}</a></span> +highest tribute we can pay a man is to say that a +certain kind of action is beneath him. We say +that we know A would not have committed a theft, +but we are quite willing to believe it of B. In each +case we make no allowance for the operation of an +undetermined will; such doubts as we have being +connected with our inability to completely analyze +the character in question. But our prognostications +are strictly based upon our knowledge of character +and upon the conviction that given a certain character +and the operation of particular motives, +specific action follows with mathematical certainty.</p> + +<p>And this, as has previously been pointed out, +gives the only reliable basis for the cultivation of +character. The whole aim of education, whether it +be that received in the home, in the school, or the +larger and more protracted education of social life, +has the aim and purpose of securing the spontaneous +response of a particular action to a particular +stimulus, or on the negative side that certain circumstances +shall not arouse desires of a socially unwelcome +character. The phrase "Patriotism" thus +serves to arouse a group of feelings that cluster +round the state and social life. "Home" awakens +its own groups of domestic and parental feelings. +"Duty," again, covers a wider sphere, but involves +the same process. By instruction and by training, +certain conditions, circumstances, words, or +associations are made to call up trains of connected +feelings which, culminating in a desire, imperatively +demand conduct along a given line. The +more complete the education, the stronger the desire; +the stronger the desire, the more certain the action.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">{99}</a></span> +The more defective the education the less the certainty +with which we can count upon specific conduct. +The man who acts to-day in one way and +to-morrow in another way is not a man of strong +desires, so much as he is a man whose desires are +undisciplined. The man who acts with uniform +certainty is not a man of weak desire, but one whose +desires run with strength and swiftness in a uniform +direction. And it is a curious feature of indeterministic +psychology that it should take as clear +evidence of the subordination of desire to "will" +the man whose desire is so strong as to preclude +hesitation between it and action.</p> + +<p>The whole of education, the whole of the discipline +of life, is thus based upon the determination +of conduct by circumstances and character. If the +principle of cause and effect does not fully apply +to conduct, all our training is so much waste of time. +But it is because we cannot really think of the past +not influencing the present, once we bring the two +into relation, that we, Determinist and Indeterminist +alike, proceed with our deterministic methods of +training, and in this instance at least wisdom is +justified of her children.</p> + +<p>Finally, if the above be granted, can we longer +attach meaning to the expression that man forms his +own character? Well, if it means that a man has +any share in his psychic endowments, or that they +being what they are at any given time he could +at that time act differently from the way in which +he does act, the expression is meaningless. It is +absolute nonsense. But in another sense it does +convey an important truth. We must, however,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">{100}</a></span> +always bear in mind that in speaking of a man's +character we are not dealing with two things, but +with one thing. The character is the man, the man +is the character. Or to be quite accurate, body and +mind, physical and psychical qualities together, form +the man, and any separation of these is for purposes +of analysis and study only. If we say, then, that +a man is master of his own character, or that a +man may mould his own character, we do not imply +the existence of an independent entity moulding or +mastering something else. We are saying no more +than that every experience carries its resultant into +the sum of character. Action generates habit, and +habit means a more or less permanent modification +of character. What a man is, is the outcome of +what he has been, and a perception of this truth no +more conflicts with the principles of Determinism as +above explained, than a stone being intercepted in +its fall down the side of a hill by lodging against a +tree is an infraction of the law of gravitation. In +this sense, using figurative language, a man may be +said to be master of himself. What he does proceeds +from himself; it is the expression of his character, +and his doing cuts deeper the grooves of +habit, and so makes more certain the performance of +similar actions in the future. It is the fact of the +motive springing from character which determines +the act that makes the man its author. And the +knowledge of this supplies him with, not alone the +most powerful incentive towards the determination of +his own character, but, what is equally important, +the only method whereby to fashion the character +of others.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">{101}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="PROBLEM_IN_DETERMINISM" id="PROBLEM_IN_DETERMINISM"></a> +VIII.<br /> +A PROBLEM IN DETERMINISM.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">If</span> human feeling followed logical conviction the +discussion of Determinism might, so far as the +present writer is concerned, be considered as +finished. Ultimately this doubtless occurs; but in +the interim one has to reckon with the play of +feeling, fashioned by long-standing conviction, +upon convictions that are of recent origin. Thus it +happens that many who realise the logical force of +arguments similar to those hitherto advanced, find +themselves in a state of fearfulness concerning the +ultimate effect on human life of a convinced Determinism. +The conflict between feeling and conviction +that exists in their own minds they naturally +ascribe to others, and endow it with a permanency +which mature consideration might show to +be unwarranted. It would indeed be strange and +lamentable if the divorce between feeling and conviction—to +adopt a popular classification—was not +simply incidental to change, but was also an inexpugnable +part of fundamental aspects of human life.</p> + +<p>Mr. A. J. Balfour has indeed gone so far as to +suggest,<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> as a theory to meet this phenomenon, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">{102}</a></span> +the immediate consciousness of our actions being +determined would be so paralyzing to action, that +Nature has by "a process of selective slaughter" +made a consciousness of this character a practical +impossibility. But it would seem that the fact of a +consciousness of determination developing at all +affords strong presumptions in favour of the belief +that no such selective slaughter is really necessary +to the maintenance of vital social relations. Mr. +Balfour's argument might have some weight against +Fatalism, which says that what is to be will be in +despite of all that may be done to prevent its occurrence; +but we are on different ground with a theory +which makes what <em>I</em> do part of the sequence that +issues in a particular result.</p> + +<p>The problem is put very plainly in the following +two quotations. The first is from a private source, +written by one who fears the consequences of Determinism +on conduct. The writer says:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"In a moral crisis, and with the consciousness +of a strong tendency in the direction of +what is felt to be wrong, is there no danger of +this desire gaining further strength and +becoming the predominant feeling by accepting +Determinism, causing a weakened sense of +responsibility, besides providing a convenient +excuse for giving way to the lower instead of +the higher? Thus in a question of alternatives +is it not conceivable that by dwelling on this +thought, the agent is resisting possibilities +which might otherwise have a different effect had +Determinism no advocacy and with a different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">{103}</a></span> +competitive factor to oppose? This, it seems +to me, is what the Indeterminist fears, and I +think it must be admitted not without some +reason."</p></blockquote> + +<p>The second comes from Mr. F. W. Headley's +work, <cite>Life and Evolution</cite>. Mr. Headley, after discussing +the evolution of mind, and after admitting +the impregnable nature of the determinist position, +says that notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary +we cannot help cherishing the belief that we +are in some sense "free," and adds:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"For practical purposes what is wanted is +not free-will but a working belief in it. When +the time for decision and for action comes, +a man must feel that he is free to +choose or he is lost. And this working belief +in free-will, even though the thing itself be +proved to be a phantom and an illusion, is the +inalienable property of every healthy man."</p></blockquote> + +<p>Both these criticisms might be met by the method +of analysing the use made of certain leading words. +For example, the Determinist would quite agree that +for conduct to be fruitful a man must feel that he +is free to choose. But unless his freedom consists +in liberty to obey the dictates of his real nature, +the term is without significance. The fact of choice, +as has been pointed out, is common ground for both +Determinist and Indeterminist. The real question +is whether the choice itself is determined or not. +What a man needs to feel is that his choice is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">{104}</a></span> +decisive, and that it is based upon an impartial +review of the alternatives as they appear to him. +Determinism makes full allowance for this; it is +Indeterminism which in denying the application of +causality to the will substantially asserts that the +whole training of a lifetime may be counteracted by +the decision of an uncaused will, and so renders +the whole process unintelligible. And as to Determinism +causing a weakened sense of responsibility, +surely one may fairly argue that the consciousness +of the cumulative force of practice may well serve +to warn us against yielding to a vicious propensity, +and so strengthen the feeling of resistance to it. +There could hardly be conceived a stronger incentive +to right action, or to struggle against unwholesome +desires, than this conviction. Moreover, the +practical testimony of those who are convinced +Determinists is all in this direction. The fears are +expressed by those whose advocacy of Determinism +is at best of but a lukewarm description.</p> + +<p>But in order that the full weight of the difficulty +may be realized let us put the matter in a still more +forcible form. Determinism, it is to be remembered, +is an attempt to apply to mind and morals that +principle of causation which is of universal application +in the physical world, and where it has +proved itself so fruitful and suggestive. On this +principle all that is flows from all that has been in +such a way that, given a complete knowledge of the +capacities of all the forces in operation at any one +time, the world a century hence could be predicted +with mathematical accuracy. So likewise with +human nature. Human conduct being due to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">{105}</a></span> +interaction of organism with environment, our inability +to say what a person will do under given +circumstances is no more than an expression of our +ignorance of the quantitative and qualitative value +of the forces operating. The possibilities of action +are co-extensive with the actualities of ignorance. +There is no break in the working of causation, no +matter what the sphere of existence with which we +happen to be dealing.</p> + +<p>It is at this point that Determinism lands one in +what is apparently an ethical <i>cul-de-sac</i>. If all that +is, is the necessary result of all that has been, if +nothing different from what does occur could occur, +what is the meaning of the sense of power over +circumstances that we possess? And why urge +people to make an effort in this or that direction if +everything, including the effort or its absence, is +determined? I may flatter myself with the notion +that things are better because of some action of +mine. But beyond the mere fact that my action is +part of the stream of causation, all else is a trick +of the imagination. My conduct is, all the time, +the result of the co-operation of past conditions +with present circumstances. To say that praise or +blame of other people's conduct, or approval or disapproval +of my own conduct, is itself a determinative +force, hardly meets the point. For these, too, +are part of the determined order.</p> + +<p>It might be urged that the knowledge that by +exciting certain feelings others are proportionately +weakened operates in the direction of improvement. +Quite so; and as a mere description of what occurs +the statement is correct. But to the Determinist<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">{106}</a></span> +there is no "I" that determines which feeling or +cluster of feelings shall predominate. "I" am the +expression of the succession and co-ordination of +mental states; we are still within a closed circle of +causation. Whether I am good or bad, wise or +unwise, I shall be what I must be, and nothing else; +do as I must do, and no more.</p> + +<p>This is, I think, putting the Indeterminists' case +as strongly as it can be put. How is the Determinist +to meet the attack? A common retort is that all +this being granted things remain as they were. If +the criminal action is determined so is that of the +judge, and so no harm is done. We shall go on +praising or blaming, punishing or rewarding, doing +or not doing, exactly as before, simply because we +cannot do otherwise. This, however, while effective +as a mere retort, is not very satisfactory as an +answer. For it neither explains the sense of power +people feel they possess, nor does it meet the +criticism raised. On the one hand there is the fact +that character does undergo modification, and the +conviction that <em>my</em> effort does play a part in securing +that modification. And with this there goes the +feeling—with some—that if everything, mental +states and dispositions included, is part of an unbroken +and unbreakable order, why delude ourselves +with the notion of personal power? Why not +let things drift? And on the other hand there is +the conviction that scientific Determinism holds the +field. The state of mind is there, and it is fairly +expressed in the two quotations already given; particularly +in Mr. Headley's statement that we ought +to act as though Free-Will were a fact, even though<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">{107}</a></span> +we know it to be otherwise. The difficulty is there, +and one must admit that it is not always fairly +faced by writers on Determinism. An appeal is +made to man's moral sense, and this, while legitimate +enough in some connections, is quite irrelevant +in this. Or it is said that a knowledge of the +causational nature of morals should place people on +their guard against encouraging harmful states of +mind. This is also good counsel, but it clearly +does not touch the point that, whether I encourage +harmful or beneficial states of mind, it is all part +of the determined order of things.</p> + +<p>As an example of what has been said we may +take a passage from John Stuart Mill. In his +criticism of Sir William Hamilton, Mill remarks:—</p> + +<blockquote><p>"The true doctrine of the causation of +human actions maintains ... that not only our +conduct, but our character, is, in part, amenable +to our will; that we can by employing the +proper means, improve our character; and that +if our character is such that while it remains +what it is, it necessitates us to do wrong, it +will be just to apply motives which will necessitate +us to strive for its improvement, and so +emancipate ourselves from the other necessity; +in other words, we are under a moral obligation +to seek the improvement of our moral +character."</p></blockquote> + +<p>Admirable as is this passage it is clearly no reply +to the criticism that whether we seek moral improvement +or not, either course is as much necessitated as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">{108}</a></span> +is the character that needs improving. To give a +real relevance to this passage we should have to +assume the existence of an ego outside the stream of +causation deciding at what precise point it should +exert a determining influence. That so clear a +thinker as Mill should have overlooked this gives +point to what has been said as to writers on +Determinism having failed to squarely face the +issue.</p> + +<p>A more valid reply to Mr. Headley's position +would be that so long as we believe a theory to be +sound there is no real gain in acting as though we +were convinced otherwise. Granting that an illusion +may have its uses, it can only be of service so long +as we do not know it to be an illusion. A mirage +of cool trees and sparkling pools may inspire tired +travellers in a desert to renewed efforts of locomotion. +But if they <em>know</em> it to be a mirage it only +serves to discourage effort. And once we believe in +Determinism, our right course, and our only profitable +course, is to face all the issues as courageously +as may be. Not that a correct reading of Determinism +leads to our sitting with folded hands lacking +the spirit to strive for better things.</p> + +<p>It may be that certain people so read Determinism, +but one cannot reasonably hold a theory responsible +for every misreading of it that exists. Theologians +in particular would be in a very uncomfortable position +if this rule were adopted. A theory is responsible +for such conclusions or consequences as are +logically deducible therefrom, but no more. And +what we are now concerned with is, first, will Determinism, +properly understood, really have the effect<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">{109}</a></span> +feared; and, second, is it possible for Determinism +to account adequately for the belief that it is +possible to modify other people's character, and in +so doing modify our own? In Mill's words, can +we exchange the necessity to do wrong for the +necessity to do right? I believe that a satisfactory +reply can be given to both questions.</p> + +<p>In the first place we have to get rid of the overpowering +influence of an atomistic psychology. A +very little study of works on psychology—particularly +of the more orthodox schools—is enough to +show that the social medium as a factor determining +man's mental nature has been either ignored, or +given a quite subordinate position. Because in +studying the mental qualities of man we are necessarily +dealing with an individual brain, it has been +assumed that mental phenomena may be explained +with no more than a casual reference to anything +beyond the individual organism. This assumption +may be sound so long as we are dealing with mind +as the function of definitely localized organs, or if +we are merely describing mental phenomena. It is +when we pass to the contents of the mind, and study +the significance of mental states, or enquire how +they came into existence, that we find the atomistic +psychology breaking down, and we find ourselves +compelled to deal with mind as a psycho-sociologic +phenomenon, with its relation to the social medium. +Then we discover that it is man's social relationships, +the innumerable generations of reaction between individual +organisms and the social medium, which +supply the key to problems that are otherwise +insoluble.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">{110}</a></span> +It has already been pointed out that the whole +significance of morality is social. If we restrict +ourselves to the individual no adequate explanation +can be given of such qualities as sympathy, honesty, +truthfulness, chastity, kindness, etc. Separate it +in thought from the social medium and morality +becomes meaningless. Properly studied, psychology +yields much the same result. When we get beyond +the apprehension of such fundamental qualities as +time and space, heat and cold, colour and sound, +the contour of man's mind, so to speak, is a social +product. His feelings and impulses imply a social +medium as surely as does morality. From this +point of view the phrase "Social sense" is no mere +figure of speech; it is the expression of a pregnant +truth, the statement of something as real as any +scientific law with which we are acquainted.</p> + +<p>For the essence of a scientific law is the expression +of a relation. The law of gravitation, for instance, +formulates the relations existing between +particles of matter. If there existed but one particle +of matter in the universe gravitation would be a +meaningless term. Introduce a second particle, and +a relation is established between the two, and the +material for a scientific "law" created. In the +same way a description of individual human +qualities is fundamentally a statement of the relations +existing between individuals living in groups; +and any attempt to understand human nature without +considering these relations is as certainly foredoomed +to failure as would be the attempt to study +a particle of matter apart from the operation of all +known forces. The individual as he exists to-day<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">{111}</a></span> +is not something that exists apart from the social +forces; he is an expression, an epitome, of all their +past and present operations. The really essential +thing in the study of human nature is not so much +the discrete individual A or B, but the relations +existing between A and B. It is these which make +each end of the term what it is—determines the individual's +language, feelings, thoughts, and +character.</p> + +<p>It is along these lines that we have to look for +an explanation of the feeling that we can initiate a +reform in character, and of a sense of power in +determining events. We start with a sense of power +over the course of events—which is interpreted as +the equivalent of our ability to initiate absolutely +a change in our own character or in that of others. +But a little reflection convinces us—particularly if +we call ourselves Determinists—that this interpretation +is quite erroneous. An absolute beginning +is no more conceivable in the mental or +moral sphere than it is in the physical world. The +sum of all that is is the product of all that has +been, and in this, desires, feelings, dispositions are +included no less than physical properties. Now, +curiously enough, the conviction that an absolute +change in character can be initiated exists with +much greater strength in regard to oneself than +it does with regard to others. It is easier to +observe others than to analyze one's own mental +states, with the result that most people can more +readily realize that what others do is the product +of their heredity and their environment than they +can realize it in their own case. Of course,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">{112}</a></span> +reflection shows that the same principle applies in +both directions, but we are here dealing with +moods rather than with carefully reasoned out convictions. +And, generally speaking, while we <em>feel</em> +ourselves masters of our own fate, we only suspect +a similar strength in others. But each one realizes, +and with increasing vividness, the power he +possesses in modifying other people's character by +a change of circumstances. We see this illustrated +by the increased emphasis placed upon the importance +of better sanitation, better housing, better +conditions of labour, and of an improved education. +More from observing others than by studying ourselves +we see how modifiable a thing human nature +is. We see how character is modified by an alteration +of the material environment, and we also note +our own individual function as a determinative influence +in effecting this modification.</p> + +<p>Now I quite fail to see that there is in this sense +of power over circumstances anything more than a +recognition of our own efforts as part of the +determinative sequence. The added factor to the +general causative series is the consciousness of +man himself. We are conscious, more or less +clearly, of our place in the sequence; we are able +to recognize and study our relations to past and +present events, and our probable relation to future +ones. We see ourselves as so many efficient causes +of those social reactions that go to make up a +science of sociology, and it is this which gives us +a sense of <em>power</em> of determining events. I say +"power" because "freedom" is an altogether +different thing. The question of whether we are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">{113}</a></span> +free to determine events is, as I have shown, +meaningless when applied to scientific matters. +But the question of whether or not we have the +<em>power</em> of determining events may be answered +in the affirmative—an answer not in the least +affected by the belief that this power is strictly +conditioned by past and present circumstances. +The sense of power is real, and it expresses a fact, +even though the fact be an inevitable one. We are +all shapers of each other's character, moulders of +each other's destiny. The recognition of our power +to act in this relation is not contrary to Determinism, +Determinism implies it. It is this which +gives a real meaning to the expression "social +sense." For the social sense can have no other +meaning or value than as a recognition of the +action of one individual upon another, which, as in +the case of a chemical compound, results in the +production of something that is not given by the +mere sum of individual qualities.</p> + +<p>So, too, do we get by this method a higher +meaning to the word "freedom." In an earlier +part of this essay it was pointed out that +"freedom" was of social origin and application. +Its essential meaning is liberty to carry out the +impulses of one's nature unrestricted by the +coercive action of one's fellows. But there is a +higher and a more positive meaning than this. +Man is a social animal; his character is a social +product. The purely human qualities not only lose +their value when divorced from social relationships, +it is these relationships that provide the only +medium for their activity. To say that a person<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">{114}</a></span> +is free to express moral qualities in the absence of +his fellows is meaningless, since it is only in their +presence that the manifestation of them is possible. +It is the intercourse of man with man that gives to +each whatever freedom he possesses. The restraints +imposed upon each member of a society in +the interests of all are not a curtailing of human +freedom but the condition of its realization. To +chafe against them is, to use Kant's famous illustration, +as unreasonable as a bird's revolt against +the opposing medium or atmosphere, in ignorance +of the fact that it is this opposition which makes +flight possible. The only genuine freedom that +man can know and enjoy is that provided by social +life. Human freedom has its origin in social relationships, +and to these we are ultimately driven to +discover its meaning and significance.</p> + +<p>So far, then, the sense of power in controlling +events which each possesses presents no insuperable +difficulty to a theory of Determinism. Only +one other point remains on which to say a word, +and that is whether a conviction of the causative +character of human action would lead to a weakening +of effort or to moral depression. Why should +it have this effect? It is curious that those who +fear this result seem to have only in mind the +tendencies to wrongdoing. But if it operates at +all it must operate in all directions, and this would +certainly strengthen good resolutions as well as +bad ones. And even though no more were to be +said, this would justify the assertion that merit +and demerit would remain unaffected, and that any +harm done in one direction would be compensated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">{115}</a></span> +by good done in another. But another important +consideration is to be added. This is that while a +consciousness of the power of habit acts as a +retarding influence on wrongdoing, it has an +accelerating influence in the reverse direction—that +is, unless we assume a character acting with +the deliberate intention of cultivating an evil disposition. +Besides, the really vicious characters are +not usually given to reflecting upon the origin and +nature of their desires, and are therefore quite +unaffected by any theory of volition; while those +who are given to such reflection are not usually of +a vicious disposition. We are really crediting the +vicious with a degree of intelligence and reflective +power quite unwarranted by the facts of the case.</p> + +<p>Finally, the criticism with which I have been +dealing takes a too purely intellectual view of conduct. +It does not allow for the operation of sympathy, +or for the power of social reaction. And +these are not only real, they are of vital importance +when we are dealing with human nature. For man +cannot, even if he would, remain purely passive. +The power of sympathy, the desire for social intercourse, +the invincible feeling that in some way he is +vitally concerned with the well-being of the +society to which he belongs, these are always in +operation, even though their degree of intensity +varies with different individuals. We cannot possibly +isolate man in considering conduct, because +his whole nature has been moulded by social intercourse, +and craves continuously for social approval. +And it is such feelings that are powerful agents in +the immediate determination of conduct. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">{116}</a></span> +mental perception of the causes and conditions of +conduct are feeble by comparison and can only +operate with relative slowness. And in their operation +they are all the time checked and modified by +the fundamental requirements of the social +structure.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">{117}</a></span></p> + +<h2><a name="ENVIRONMENT" id="ENVIRONMENT"></a> +IX.<br /> +ENVIRONMENT.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">In</span> the course of the foregoing pages we have +made frequent reference to "environment," without +the word being precisely described or defined. +The subject was of too great importance to be +dismissed with a bald definition, and to have dealt +with it earlier at suitable length might have diverted +attention from the main argument. But so much +turns on a correct understanding of the word +"environment" that a discussion of Determinism +would be incomplete that failed to fix its meaning +with a fair degree of accuracy.</p> + +<p>A very casual study of anti-deterministic +literature is enough to show that a great deal of +the opposition to a scientific interpretation of +human conduct has its origin in a quite wrong conception +of what the determinist has in mind when +he speaks of the part played by the environment in +the determination of conduct. Even writings +ostensibly deterministic in aim have not been free +from blame in their use of the word. Thus on the +one hand we find it said that man is a creature of +his environment, and by "environment" we are to +understand, by implication, only the material +forces, which are assumed to somehow drive man +hither and thither in much the same way as a +tennis ball is driven this way or that by the player.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">{118}</a></span> +Against this there has been a natural and, let it +be said, a justifiable reaction. Expressed in this +way it was felt that man was not at the mercy of +his surroundings. It was felt that, whatever be +its nature the organism does exert some influence +over environmental forces, and that it is not a +merely passive register of their operations. +Neither of these views expresses the whole truth. It +may be that each expresses a truth, and it is still +more probable, as is the case with some terms +already examined, that the confusion arises from a +mis-use of the language employed.</p> + +<p>To-day we are all familiar with the dictum that +the maintenance of life is a question of adaptation +to environment—a truth that is equally applicable +to ideas and institutions. But the general truth +admitted, there is next required a consideration of +its application to the particular subject in hand, +and in connection with our present topic some +attention must be paid both to the nature of the +organism and of the environment with which we are +dealing. We then discover that not alone are we +dealing with an organism which is extremely plastic +in its nature, but that the environment may also +vary within very wide limits. On the one side, and +in relation to man, we may be dealing with an +environment that is mainly physical in character, +or it may be a combination of physical conditions +and biological forces, or, yet again, it may be predominantly +psychological in its nature. And, on the +other hand, the reaction of the organism on the +environment may vary from extreme feebleness to +an almost overpowering determination. We may,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">{119}</a></span> +indeed, anticipate our argument by saying that +one of the chief features of human progress is the +gradual subordination of the material environment +to the psychologic powers of man.</p> + +<p>If, now, we contrast the environment of an +uncivilized with that of a civilized people the +difference is striking. The environment of an +uncivilized race will consist of the immediate +physical surroundings, the animals that are hunted +for sport or killed for food, and a comparatively +meagre stock of customs and traditions. The +environment of a modern European will add to the +physical surroundings an enormously enlarged mass +of social traditions and customs, an extensive +literature, contact with numerous other societies in +various stages of culture, and relations, more or +less obscure, to a vast literary and social past. The +environment thus includes not merely the living, +but also the dead. Roman law, Greek philosophy, +Eastern religious ideas, etc., all affect the twentieth +century European. It would require a lengthy +essay to enumerate all the influences that dominate +the life of a particular people of to-day, but enough +has been said to illustrate the truth that we must +use the term "environment" so as to include <em>all</em> +that affects the organism. And when this is done +it soon becomes clear that by the very growth of +humanity the influence of the physical portion of +the environment becomes of relatively less +importance with the progress of the race—it is +the subordination of the physical environment that +is the principal condition of the advance of +civilization.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">{120}</a></span> +But even when our conception of the meaning of +environment has been thus enlarged, we need to +be on our guard against misconception from another +side. For the environment is only one factor in the +problem; the organism is another, and the relative +importance of the two is a matter of vital significance. +We may still make the mistake of treating +the environment as active and the organism as +passive. This would be a similar mistake to that +which is made when morality and religion are +treated as being no more than a reflection of +economic conditions. The action of the environment +is given a place of first importance, while the +reaction of the organism on its environment is +treated as a negligible quantity. Historically this +may be taken as a reaction against the extreme +spiritualistic view which, in upholding, a theory of +Free-Will made no allowance for the influence of +the surroundings. An extreme view in one direction +usually sets up an extreme view by way of opposition, +and it must be confessed that in social +philosophy the power of the environment has often +been made omnipotent. The medium has been presented +as active and the organism as passive. +Different results occur because the susceptibilities of +organisms vary. Good or bad influences affect +individuals differently for much the same reason +that soils differ in their capacity for absorbing +water.</p> + +<p>From the scientific and the philosophic side this +conception derived a certain adventitious strength. +In the first place there was the now generally discarded +psychology which taught that the individual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">{121}</a></span> +mind was as a sheet of blank paper on which +experience inscribed its lessons. And in the second +place the growth of biological science brought out +with great distinctness the influence of the environment +on organic life. It was very plain that the +quality and quantity of the food supply, the action +of air and light, and other purely environmental forces +exercised an important influence. In the plant +world it was seen how much could be effected by +a mere change of habitat. In the animal world +markings and structure seemed to have an obvious +reference to the nature of the environment. It, +therefore, seemed nothing but a logical inference +to extend the same reasoning to man, and treat +not only his structure but his mental capacities as +being the outcome of the same kind of correspondence.</p> + +<p>But a too rigid application of biological principles +lands one in error. Society is more than a mere +biological group, and no reasoning that proceeds +on the assumption that it is no more than that can +avoid confusion. And we certainly cannot square +the facts with a theory which treats the human +organism as passive under the operation of environmental +forces. The conviction that man plays a +positive part in life is general, powerful, and, I +think, justifiable. But if what <em>I</em> do is at any time +the product of the environmental forces, physical +and other, there does not seem any room for <em>me</em> as +an active participant. And the facts seem to +demand that the individual should appear in some +capacity other than that of representing the total in +an environmental calculation. This would leave<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">{122}</a></span> +man with no other function than that of a billiard +ball pushed over a table by rival players. Given the +force exerted by the player, added to the size, +weight, and position of the ball, and the product +of the combination gives us the correct answer. But +this kind of calculation will not do in the case of +man. Here we must allow, in addition to external +influences, the positive action of man on his surroundings. +The conception of the organism as a +plexus of forces capable of this reaction is, indeed, +vital to our conception of a living being. Granted +that in either case, that of the billiard ball and that +of the man, the result expresses the exact sum of all +the forces aiding at the time, there still remains an +important distinction in the two cases. Whether the +billiard ball is struck by a professional player or by +an amateur, provided it be struck in a particular way +the result is in both cases identical. An identity of +result is produced by an identity of external +conditions.</p> + +<p>With the human organism—with, in fact, any +organism—this rule does not apply. In any two +cases the external factors may be identical, but the +results may be entirely different. A temptation that +leaves one unaffected may prove overpowering with +another. Exactly the same conditions of food, +occupation, residence, and social position may +co-exist with entirely different effects on the +organism. These differences will be manifested +from the earliest years and are a direct consequence +of the positive reaction of the organism on its +environment, a reaction that is more profound in the +case of man than in that of any other animal.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">{123}</a></span> +To put the matter briefly. In the case of the +billiard player the ball remains a constant factor in +a problem in which external conditions represent a +variant. In the case of man and his environment +we are dealing with two sets of factors, neither of +which is constant and one of which—the human one—varies +enormously. And the reaction of man on +his environment becomes so great as to result in its +practical transformation.</p> + +<p>It may, of course, be urged that all this is covered +and allowed for by heredity. This may be so, but +I am arguing against those who while recognizing +heredity fail to make adequate allowance for its +operations. Or it may be said that "environment" +covers all forces, including heredity. But in that +case the distinction between organism and environment +is useless—in fact, it disappears. If, however, +the distinction between the two is retained, our +theorizing must give full appreciation to both. And +in that case we must not fail to allow for the transforming +power of man over his surroundings. Nor +must we overlook another and a very vital fact, that +in a large measure the environment to which civilised +mankind must adapt itself is largely a thing of +human creation.</p> + +<p>Viewed as merely external circumstances, the +physical environment of man remains constant. At +any rate, such changes as do take place occur with +such slowness that for generations we may safely +deal with them as unchanged. The dissipation of +the heat of the earth may be a fact, but no one takes +this into account in dealing with the probabilities of +human life during the next few generations. On the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">{124}</a></span> +other hand, the organism represents the cumulative, +and consequently, ever-changing power of human +nature, and it is this that gives us the central fact +of human civilization. Whether acquired characters +be inherited or not may be still an open question, but +in any case there is no denying that capacity is +heritable, and natural selection will move along the +line of favouring the survival of that capacity which +is most serviceable. And how does increasing +capacity express itself? It can do so only in the +direction of giving man a greater ability to control +and mould to his own uses the material environment +in which he is placed. Looking at the course of +social evolution, we see this increased and increasing +capacity expressed in art, industries, inventions, etc., +all of which mean in effect a transformation of the +material surroundings and their subjugation to the +needs of man. These inventions, etc., not only +involve a transformation of the existing environment; +they also mean the creating of a new +environment for succeeding generations. Each +mechanical invention, for example, is dependent +upon the inventions and discoveries that have preceded +it, and to that extent it is dependent upon the +environment. But each invention places a new +power in the hands of man, and so enables him to +still further modify and control his surroundings. +Human heredity is thus expressed in capacity as +represented by a definite organic structure. This is +one factor in the phenomenon of social evolution. +The other factor is the environment in which the +organism is placed and to which it responds. The +two factors, organism and environment, remain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">{125}</a></span> +constant throughout the animal world. It +is when we come to deal with human society +specifically, that we find a radical change +in the nature of the environment to be considered. +Granted that some influence must always +be exerted by the purely material conditions, the +fact remains that they become relatively less powerful +with the advance of civilization. The development +of agriculture, the invention of weapons and tools, +the discovery of the nature of natural forces, all +help to give the developing human a greater +measure of control over both the physical and +organic portion of his environment, and to manifest +a measure of independence concerning them.</p> + +<p>But the supreme and peculiar feature of human +society is the creation of a new medium to which the +individual must adapt himself. By means of +language and writing the knowledge and experience +gained by one generation are transmitted to its successors. +The human intellect elaborates definite +theories concerning the universe of which it forms +a part. These theories and beliefs form and +fashion institutions that are transmitted from generation +to generation. Language stereotypes tradition +and slowly creates a literature. In this way +a new medium is created which is psychological in +character, and ultimately dominates life.</p> + +<p>When a dog is about to rest it often tramps +round and round the spot on which it is to recline. +Naturalists explain this as the survival of an instinct +which in the wild dog served the useful function of +guarding it against the presence of harmful +creatures hidden in the grass. The domesticated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">{126}</a></span> +dog is here exhibiting an instinct that belongs to a +past condition of life. But man has few instincts—fewer +perhaps than any other animal. In their +stead he has a greater plasticity of nature, and a +more educable intelligence. And it is in the +exercise of this educable organization that the +psychological medium as expressed in art, literature, +and inventions, plays its part for good and ill. So +soon as he is able to understand, the individual +finds himself surrounded by ideas concerning home, +the State, the monarchy, the Church, and a +thousand and one other things. He is brought into +relation with a vast literature, and also with the +play of myriads of minds similar to his own. Henceforth, +it is this environment with which he has chiefly +to reckon in terms of either harmony or conflict. He +can no more escape it than he can dispense with the +atmosphere. It is part and parcel of himself. +Without it he ceases to be himself; for if we cut +away from man all that this psychological heredity +gives him he ceases to be man as we understand the +term. He becomes a mere animated object.</p> + +<p>Finally, we have to note that this psychological +environment is cumulative in character as being is all +powerful in its influence. By its own unceasing +activity humanity is continually triumphing over the +difficulties of its material environment and adding +to the complexity and power of its mental one. +Inevitably the environment thus becomes more +psychic in character and more powerful in its +operations. We may overcome the difficulties of +climate, poor soil, geographical position, etc., but +it is impossible to ignore the great and growing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">{127}</a></span> +pressure of this past mental life of the race. It +defies all attempts at material coercion, and gradually +transforms a material medium into what is +substantially a psychological one. Man cannot +escape the domination of his own mental life. Its +unfettered exercise supplies the only freedom he is +capable of realising, as it constitutes the source of +his influence as a link in the causative process of +determining his own destiny and moulding that of +his successors.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"> +<h2>FOOTNOTES:</h2> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> When the Mss. of this work was submitted to a well-known +firm of publishers, the reply came in the form of an +offer to publish the work provided it could be expanded +so as to admit of its publication at 7/6. It would have +been quite easy to have done this; the difficulty is to compress, +and the less a subject is understood the easier it is +to write at length on it. But the offer, though financially +tempting, would have defeated the purpose for which the +work was written, and so was declined.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> "The subjective sense of freedom, sometimes alleged +against Determinism, has no bearing on the question whatever. +The view that it has a bearing rests upon the belief +that causes compel their effects, or that nature enforces +obedience to its laws as governments do. These are mere +anthropomorphic superstitions, due to assimilation of +causes with volitions, and of natural laws with human +edicts. We feel that our will is not compelled, but that +only means that it is not other than we choose it to be. +It is one of the demerits of the traditional theory of causality +that it has created an artificial opposition between +determinism and the freedom of which we are introspectively +conscious." (Bertrand Russell, <cite>Mysticism and Logic</cite>, +p. 206.)</p> + +<p>So also Wundt: "Freedom and constraint are reciprocal +concepts; they are both necessarily connected with consciousness; +outside of consciousness they are both imaginary +concepts, which only a mythologising imagination could +relate to things." (<cite>Human and Animal Psychology</cite>, p. 426.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> The essential issue is again confused by the language +employed. If all volitional action is action performed with the +view to an end, a quite correct and completely adequate +word would be "intentional"! If we were to speak of +an "intentional" action instead of a voluntary one, the +nature of the act would be clear, the factors of experience, +memory, consciousness of an end, would be indicated, and +the misleading associations of "willing" avoided. It is +difficult, however, to introduce a new terminology, and so +I must beg the reader, in the interests of clarity, to bear in +mind that whenever "voluntary action" is referred to, it +is "intentional" action that is connoted by the phrase.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Whether we work backward or forward the result is the +same. Strip off from the mind all feelings, desires, all +consciousness of ends and means to ends, and what there +is left is not a "will" ready to throw the weight of its +preference in this or that direction, but a complete blank.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <cite>Types of Ethical Theory</cite>, vol. ii. p. 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> See the lecture on "The Dilemma of Determinism" in +the volume <cite>The Will to Believe, and other Essays</cite>. +London; 1903.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <cite>Works</cite>, vol. ii. p. 142.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Of course, the man and his character are not two +distinct things. The character is the man. But it would +involve needless circumlocution to insist on superfine +distinctions, and it may even help to a comprehension of +the argument to keep to familiar forms of speech.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <cite>International Journal of Ethics</cite>, vol. iv. pp. 421-422.</p></div> +</div> + +<div id="tn"> +<h2>Transcriber's Note:</h2> + +<p>Minor punctuation errors have been corrected without note. +Inconsistent hyphenation has not been changed.</p> + +<p>The following corrections were made to the text:</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_17">p. 17</a>: contantly to constantly (constantly enlarging and more comprehensive)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_24">p. 24</a>: admiting to admitting (even while admitting)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_24">p. 24</a>: which which to with which (with which it is used)</p> + +<p>p. 28 (<a href="#Footnote_2_2">Footnote 2</a>): contraint to constraint (Freedom and constraint)</p> + +<p>p. 30 (<a href="#Footnote_3_3">Footnote 3</a>): acton to action (all volitional action)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_34">p. 34</a>: Maudesley to Maudsley (says Dr. Maudsley)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_41">p. 41</a>: missing "from" added (shall be expelled from our)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_58">p. 58</a>: occured to occurred (occurred in the past)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_86">p. 86</a>: absurdem to absurdum (argument <i>ad absurdum</i>)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_98">p. 98</a>: condiitons to conditions (certain conditions, circumstances)</p> + +<p><a href="#Page_107">p. 107</a>: Hamiliton to Hamilton (Sir William Hamilton)</p> +</div> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Determinism or Free-Will?, by Chapman Cohen + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? *** + +***** This file should be named 37358-h.htm or 37358-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/7/3/5/37358/ + +Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, S.D., and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/37358.txt b/37358.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a045f0b --- /dev/null +++ b/37358.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3526 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Determinism or Free-Will?, by Chapman Cohen + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Determinism or Free-Will? + +Author: Chapman Cohen + +Release Date: September 8, 2011 [EBook #37358] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? *** + + + + +Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, S.D., and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? + + + + + Printed and Published by + THE PIONEER PRESS + (G. W. FOOTE & CO., LTD.), + 61 Farringdon Street, London, E.C. 4. + + + + + Determinism + + OR + + Free-Will? + + BY + + CHAPMAN COHEN. + + New Edition. Revised and Enlarged. + + LONDON: + THE PIONEER PRESS, + 61 FARRINGDON STREET, E.C. 4. + + 1919. + + + + +CONTENTS. + + + CHAPTER PAGE + + I.--THE QUESTION STATED 9 + + II.--"FREEDOM" AND "WILL" 23 + + III.--CONSCIOUSNESS, DELIBERATION, AND CHOICE 36 + + IV.--SOME ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES OF DETERMINISM 50 + + V.--PROFESSOR JAMES ON THE "DILEMMA OF DETERMINISM" 63 + + VI.--THE NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY 76 + + VII.--DETERMINISM AND CHARACTER 92 + + VIII.--A PROBLEM IN DETERMINISM 101 + + IX.--ENVIRONMENT 117 + + + + +PREFACE TO NEW EDITION. + + +The demand for a new edition of _Determinism or Free-Will_ is gratifying +as affording evidence of the existence of a public, apart from the class +catered for by more expensive publications, interested in philosophic +questions[1]. It was, indeed, in the conviction that such a public +existed that the book was written. Capacity, in spite of a popular +impression to the contrary, has no very close relation to cash, nor is +interest in philosophic questions indicated solely by the ability to +spend a half-guinea or guinea on a work that might well have been +published at three or four shillings. There exists a fairly large public +of sufficient capacity and education intelligently to discuss the deeper +aspects of life, but which has neither time nor patience to give to the +study of bulky works that so often leave a subject more obscure at the +end than it was at the beginning. + + [1] When the Mss. of this work was submitted to a + well-known firm of publishers, the reply came in + the form of an offer to publish the work provided + it could be expanded so as to admit of its + publication at 7/6. It would have been quite easy + to have done this; the difficulty is to compress, + and the less a subject is understood the easier it + is to write at length on it. But the offer, though + financially tempting, would have defeated the + purpose for which the work was written, and so was + declined. + +Nor does there appear any adequate reason why it should be otherwise. A +sane philosophy must base itself on the common things of life, and must +deal with the common experience of all men. The man who cannot find +material for philosophic study by reflecting on those which are near at +hand is not likely to achieve success by travelling all over the globe. +He will only succeed in presenting to his readers a more elaborately +acquired and a more expensively gained confusion. Nor is there any +reason why philosophy should be discussed only in the jargon of the +schools, except to keep it, like the religious mysteries, the property +of the initiated few. We all talk philosophy, as we all talk prose, and +doubtless many are as surprised as was M. Jourdain, when the fact is +pointed out to them. + +So whatever merit this little work has is chiefly due to the avoidance, +so far as possible, of a stereotyped phraseology, and to the elimination +of irrelevant matter that has gathered round the subject. The present +writer has long had the conviction that the great need in the discussion +of ethical and psychological questions is their restatement in the +simplest possible terms. The most difficult thing that faces the +newcomer to these questions is to find out what they are really all +about. Writer follows writer, each apparently more concerned to discuss +what others have said than to deal with a straightforward discussion of +the subject itself. Imposing as this method may be, it is fatal to +enlightenment. For the longer the discussion continues the farther away +from the original question it seems to get. One has heard of "The +Religion of Philosophy," and its acquisition of obscurity in thought and +prolixity in language seems to have gone some distance towards earning +the title. + +Being neither anxious to parade the extent of my reading, nor greatly +overawed by the large number of eminent men who have written on the +subject, I decided that what was needed was a plain statement of the +problem itself. My concern, therefore, has been to keep out all that has +not a direct bearing on the essential question, and only to deal with +other writers so far as a discussion of what they say may help to make +plain the point at issue. If the result does not carry conviction it at +least makes clear the ground of disagreement. And that is certainly +something gained. + +Moreover, there is a real need for a clearing away of all the verbal +lumber that has been allowed to gather round subjects concerning which +intelligent men and women will think even though they may be unable to +reach reliable or satisfactory conclusions. And I have good grounds for +believing that so far this little work has achieved the purpose for +which it was written. If I may say it without being accused of conceit, +it has made the subject clear to many who before found it +incomprehensible. And, really, philosophy would not be so very obscure, +if it were not for the philosophers. We may not always be able to find +answers to our questions, but we ought always to understand what the +questions are about. That it is not always the case is largely due to +those who mistake obscurity for profundity, and in their haste to rise +from the ground lose altogether their touch with the earth. + + C. C. + + + + +DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? + +I. + +THE QUESTION STATED. + + +At the tail end of a lengthy series of writers, from Augustine to +Martineau, and from Spinoza to William James, one might well be excused +the assumption that nothing new remains to be said on so well-worn a +topic as that of Free-Will. Against this, however, lies the feeling that +in the case of any subject which continuously absorbs attention some +service to the cause of truth is rendered by a re-statement of the +problem in contemporary language, with such modifications in terminology +as may be necessary, and with such illustrations from current positive +knowledge as may serve to make the issue clear to a new generation. In +the course of time new words are created, while old ones change their +meanings and implications. This results not only in the terminology of a +few generations back taking on the character of a dead language to the +average contemporary reader, but may occasion the not unusual spectacle +of disputants using words with such widely different meanings that even +a clear comprehension of the question at issue becomes impossible. + +So much may be assumed without directly controverting or endorsing +Professor Paulsen's opinion that the "Free-Will problem is one which +arose under certain conditions and has disappeared with the +disappearance of those conditions;" or the opposite opinion of Professor +William James that there is no other subject on which an inventive +genius has a better chance of breaking new ground. If mankind--even +educated mankind--were composed of individuals whose brains functioned +with the accuracy of the most approved text-books of logic, Professor +Paulsen's opinion would be self-evidently true. Granting that the +conditions which gave rise to the belief in Free-Will have disappeared, +the belief itself should have disappeared likewise. Professor Paulsen's +own case proves that he is either wrong in thinking that these +conditions have disappeared, or in assuming that, this being the case, +the belief has also died out. + +The truth is that beliefs do not always, or even usually, die with the +conditions that gave them birth. Society always has on hand a plentiful +stock of beliefs that are, like so many intellectual vagrants, without +visible means of support. Human history would not present the clash and +conflict of opinion it does were it otherwise. Indeed, if a belief is in +possession its ejection is the most difficult of all operations. +Possession is here not merely nine points of the law, it is often all +the law that is acknowledged. Beliefs once established acquire an +independent vitality of their own, and may defy all destructive efforts +for generations. One may, therefore, agree with the first half of +Professor Paulsen's statement without endorsing the concluding portion. +The problem has not, so far as the generality of civilized mankind is +concerned, disappeared. The originating conditions have gone, but the +belief remains, and its real nature and value can only be rightly +estimated by a mental reconstruction of the conditions that gave it +birth. As Spencer has reminded us, the pedigree of a belief is as +important as is the pedigree of a horse. We cannot be really certain +whether a belief is with us because of its social value, or because of +sheer unreasoning conservatism, until we know something of its history. +In any case we understand better both it and the human nature that gives +it hospitality by knowing its ancestry. And of this truth no subject +could better offer an illustration than the one under discussion. + +Reserving this point for a moment, let us ask, "What is the essential +issue between the believers in Free-Will and the upholders of the +doctrine of Determinism?" One may put the Deterministic position in a +few words. Essentially it is a thorough-going application of the +principle of causation to human nature. What Copernicus and Kepler did +for the world of astronomy, Determinism aims at doing for the world of +psychological phenomena. Human nature, it asserts, is part and parcel of +nature as a whole, and bears to it the same relation that a part does to +the whole. When the Determinist refers to the "Order of Nature" he +includes all, and asserts that an accurate analysis of human nature will +be found to exemplify the same principle of causation that is seen to +obtain elsewhere. True, mental phenomena have laws of their own, as +chemistry and biology have their own peculiar laws, but these are +additional, not contradictory to other natural laws. Any exception to +this is apparent, not real. Man's nature, physical, biological, +psychological, and sociological, is to be studied as we study other +natural phenomena, and the closer our study the clearer the recognition +that its manifestations are dependent upon processes with which no one +dreams of associating the conception of "freedom." Determinism asserts +that if we knew the quality and inclination of all the forces bearing +upon human nature, in the same way that we know the forces determining +the motions of a planet, then the forecasting of conduct would become a +mere problem in moral mathematics. That we cannot do this, nor may ever +be able to do it, is due to the enormous and ever-changing complexity of +the forces that determine conduct. But this ought not to blind us to the +general truth of the principle involved. To some extent we do forecast +human conduct; that we cannot always do so, or cannot do so completely, +only proves weakness or ignorance. The Determinist claims, therefore, +that his view of human nature is thoroughly scientific, and that he is +only applying here principles that have borne such excellent fruit +elsewhere; and, finally, that unless this view of human nature be +accepted the scientific cultivation of character becomes an +impossibility. + +So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will--for the future it +will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or +"Indeterminist"--does not on his part deny the influence on the human +organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he +denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever +furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms +that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained +residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive +science. He denies that conduct--even theoretically--admits of +explanation and prediction in the same way that explanation and +prediction apply to natural phenomena as a whole. It is admitted that +circumstances may influence conduct, but only in the way that a cheque +for five pounds enables one to become possessed of a certain quantity of +bullion--provided the cheque is honoured by the bank. So the "Will" may +honour or respond to certain circumstances or it may not. In other +words, the deterministic influence of circumstances is contingent, not +necessary. Circumstances determine conduct only when a "free" volition +assents to their operation. So against the proposition that conduct is +ultimately the conditioned expression of one aspect of the cosmic order, +there is the counter-proposition that intentional action is the +unconditioned expression of absolutely free beings, and is what it is +because of the selective action of an undetermined will. + +Further, against all deterministic analysis the Volitionist stubbornly +opposes the testimony of consciousness, and the necessity for the belief +in Free-Will as a moral postulate. Thus, even when the deterministic +analysis of an action--from its source in some external stimuli, to the +final neural discharge that secures its performance is complete, it is +still urged that no possible analysis can override man's conviction of +"freedom." The existence of this conviction is, of course, indisputable, +and it forms the bed-rock of all forms of anti-determinism. But the +scientific or logical value of a conviction, as such, is surely open to +question. Equally strong convictions were once held concerning the +flatness of the earth's surface, the existence of witches, and a hundred +and one other matters. Besides, a belief or a conviction is not a basal +fact in human nature, it is the last stage of a process, and can +therefore prove nothing save the fact of its own existence. Human nature +at any stage of its existence is an evolution from past human nature, +and many prevalent beliefs are as reminiscent in their character as our +rudimentary tails are reminiscent of a simian ancestry. I hope later to +make it clear that the much talked of testimony of consciousness is +quite irrelevant to the question at issue; and also that the assumed +necessity for the conception of "freedom" as a moral postulate is really +due to a misconception of both the nature of morality and of voluntary +action. + +Ultimately the question, as already indicated, resolves itself into one +of how far we are justified in applying the principle of causation. The +Determinist denies any limit to its theoretical application. The +Volitionist insists on placing man in a distinct and unique category. +But this conception of causation is in itself of the nature of a growth, +and a study of its development may well throw light on the present +question. + +A conception of causation in some form or other could hardly have been +altogether absent from the most primitive races of mankind. Some +experiences are so uniform, so persistent, and so universal that they +would inevitably be connected in terms of cause and effect. +Nevertheless, the primitive mind was so dominated by volitional +conception of nature that a sense of necessary connection between events +could only have been of a weak character. Experience may have shown that +certain physical phenomena succeeded each other in a certain order, but +the belief that these phenomena embodied the action of supernormal +conscious forces would break in upon that sense of inevitability which +is the very essence of scientific causation. Modern thought fixes its +attention upon a given series of events and declines to go further. With +us the order is inevitable. With primitive man the order, even when +perceived, is conditional upon the non-interference of assumed +supernormal intelligences. Each phenomenon, or each group of phenomena, +thus possesses to the primitive mind precisely that quality of "freedom" +which is now claimed for the human will. + +How difficult is the task of establishing causal connections between +physical phenomena the whole history of science bears witness. To +establish causal connections between external conditions and subjective +states, where the forces are more numerous and immensely more complex in +their combinations, is a task of infinitely greater difficulty. Amongst +savages it would never be attempted. Feelings arise without any +traceable connection with surrounding conditions, nor does a recurrence +of the same external circumstances produce exactly the same result. A +circumstance that produces anger one day may give rise to laughter on +another occasion. Something that produces a striking effect on one +person leaves another quite unaffected. Numerous feelings arise in +consciousness that have all the superficial signs of being +self-generated. The phenomena are too diverse in character, and the +connections too complex and obscure, for uninstructed man to reach a +deterministic conclusion. The conclusion is inevitable; man himself is +the absolute cause of his own actions; he is veritably master of his own +fate, subject only to the malign and magical influence of other +extra-human personalities. + +Primitive thinking about man is thus quite in line with primitive +thinking about other things. In a way man's earliest philosophy of +things is more coherent and more rigorously logical than that of modern +times. The same principle is applied all round. All force is conceived +as vital force; "souls" or "wills" govern all. The division between +animate and inanimate things is of the vaguest possible character; that +between man and animals can hardly be said to exist. Only very gradually +do the distinctions between animate and inanimate, voluntary and +involuntary actions, which are taken for granted by the modern mind, +arise. And it is easy to conceive that in the growth of these +distinctions, modes of thinking characteristic of primitive man, would +linger longest in the always obscure field of psychology. Broadly, +however, the growth of knowledge has consisted, as Huxley pointed out, +in the substitution of a mechanical for a volitional interpretation of +things. In one department after another purposeful action yields to +inevitable causation. In physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and +kindred sciences this process is now complete. The volitional +interpretation still betrays a feeble vitality in biology; but even here +the signs of an early demise are unmistakable. Its last stronghold is in +psychology, and this because it is at once the newest of the sciences to +be placed upon a positive basis, and also the most obscure in its +ramifications. Yet there can be no reasonable doubt that the same +principle which has been found to hold good in other directions will +sooner or later be shown to obtain here also. Science is by its very +nature progressive; and its progress is manifested by the degree to +which phenomena hitherto unrelated are brought under constantly +enlarging and more comprehensive generalisations. Men were once +satisfied to explain the "wetness" of water as due to a spirit of +"aquosity," the movement of the blood as due to a "certain spirit" +dwelling in the veins and arteries. These were not statements of +knowledge, but verbose confessions of ignorance. To this same class of +belief belongs the "Free-Will" of the anti-determinist. It is the living +representative of that immense family of souls and spirits with which +early animistic thought peopled the universe. The surviving member of a +once numerous family, it carries with it the promise of the same fate +that has already overtaken its predecessors. + +The origin of the belief in free-will once understood, the reasons for +its perpetuation are not difficult to discover. First comes the +obscurity of the processes underlying human action. This alone would +secure a certain vitality for a belief that has always made the +impossibility of explaining the origin, sequence, and relation of mental +states its principal defence. Beyond offering as evidence the +questionable affirmation of consciousness volitionists have been +unanimous in resting their case upon their adversary's want of +knowledge. And it is further characteristic that while holding to a +theory on behalf of which not a single shred of positive evidence has +ever been produced, they yet demand the most rigorous and the most +complete demonstration of determinism before they will accept it as +true; this despite the presumptive evidence in its favour arising from +the fact of its harmony with our knowledge in other directions. + +Secondly, the human mind does not at any time commence its philosophic +speculations _de novo_. It necessarily builds upon the materials +accumulated by previous generations; and usually retains the form in +which previous thinking has been cast, even when the contents undergo +marked modifications. Thus the ghost-soul of the savage, a veritable +material copy of the body, by centuries of philosophizing gets refined +into the distinct "spiritual" substance of the metaphysician. And this, +not because the notion of a "soul" was derived from current knowledge or +thinking, but because it was one of the inherited forms of thought to +which philosophy had to accommodate itself. The result of this pressure +of the past upon contemporary thinking is that a large proportion of +mental activity is in each generation devoted to reconciling past +theories of things with current knowledge. In our own time the number +of volumes written to reconcile the theory of evolution with already +existing religious views is a striking example of this phenomenon. And +beyond the philosophic few there lies the mass of the people with whom +an established opinion of any kind takes on something of a sacred +character. Unfortunately, too, many writers work with an eye to the +prejudices of this class, which prejudices are in turn strengthened by +the tacit support of men of ability, or at least by their not openly +controverting them. It is, however, of the greatest significance that +since the opening of the modern scientific period, wherever qualified +thinkers have deliberately based their conclusions upon contemporary +knowledge the theory of determinism has been generally upheld. + +A third cause of the persistence of the belief in "Free-Will" is its +association with theology. For at least four centuries, whenever the +discussion of the subject has assumed an acute form, it has been due to +theological requirements rather than to ethical or psychological +considerations. True, many other reasons have been advanced, but these +have been little more than cloaks for the theological interest. Apart +from theology there does not seem any valid reason why the principle of +determinism should rouse more opposition in connection with human +character than it does in connection with the course of physical nature. +Or if it be pointed out that the establishment of the principle of +universal causation, as applied to nature at large, was not established +without opposition, then the reply is that here again it was the +religious interest that dictated the opposition. It was felt that the +reduction of all physical phenomena to a mechanical sequence was +derogatory to the majesty of God, excluded the deity from his own +universe, and generally weakened the force of religious beliefs. And, as +a mere matter of historic fact, the establishment of the scientific +conception of nature did have, with the bulk of mankind, precisely the +consequences predicted. And when in the course of events theological +considerations were banished from one department of science after +another, it was only natural that theologians should fight with the +greater tenacity to maintain a footing in the region of human nature. + +Although the subject is in origin pre-Christian, it was in connection +with Christian theology that it assumed an important place in European +thinking. The development of monotheism gave the problem a sharper point +and a deeper meaning. The issue here was a simple one. Given the belief +in God as sole creator and governor of the world, and he may conceivably +be related to mankind in one of two ways. Either he induces man to carry +out his will by an appeal to human reason and emotion, or he has so +arranged matters that certain events will inevitably come to pass at a +certain time, human effort being one of the contributory agencies to +that end. The first supposition leaves man "free"--at least in his +relation to deity. The second leads straight to the Christian doctrine +of predestination. Either supposition has, from the theological point of +view, its disadvantages. The first leaves man free as against God, but +it limits the power of deity by creating an autonomous force that may +act contrary to the divine will. The second opens up the question of +the divine wisdom and goodness, and by making God responsible for evil +conflicts with the demands of the moral sense. Evil and goodness are +made parts of the divine plan, and as man must fit in with the general +pre-arranged scheme, personal merit and demerit disappear. These +considerations explain why in the course of the Free-Will controversy +official Christianity has ranged itself now on one side and now on the +other. It has championed Determinism or Indeterminism as the occasion +served its interest. To-day, owing to easily discoverable reasons, +Christian writers are, in the main, markedly anti-deterministic. + +The first clear statement of the Christian position, if we omit the +Pauline teaching that we are all as clay in the hands of the potter, +appears in the writings of Augustine. In opposition to the Pelagians, +Augustine maintained a doctrine of absolute predestination. No room was +allowed for human self-determination to anyone but the first man. Adam +was created and endowed with free-will, and chose evil--a curious +verification of Voltaire's definition of Free-Will as a capacity by +means of which man gets himself damned. And as in Adam there were +contained, potentially, all future generations, all are pre-destined to +eternal damnation except such as are saved through the free gift of +divine grace. This theory of Augustine's, carried to the point of +asserting the damnation of infants, was modified in several respects by +that great medieval Christian teacher, Thomas Aquinas, who held that +while the will might be "free" from external restraint, it was +determined by our reason, but was reinstated in full force by John +Calvin. He denied that the goodness or badness of man had anything +whatever to do with the bestowal or withholding of grace. God dooms men +either to heaven or hell, for no other reason than that he chooses to do +so. Most of the leading Protestants of the early Reformation period were +strongly opposed to "free-will." For instance, Zwingli asserted that God +was the "author, mover, and impeller to sin." Still more emphatic was +Luther. The will of man he compared to a horse, "If mounted by God it +wills and wends whithersoever God may will; if mounted by Satan it wills +and wends whithersoever Satan may will; neither hath it any liberty of +choice to which of the riders it shall run, or which it shall choose; +but the riders themselves contend for its acquisition and possession." +Among the most powerful essays ever written in defence of Determinism +was Jonathan Edwards's, the famous Protestant divine, "Inquiry into the +Modern Prevailing Notions respecting that Freedom of Will which is +supposed to be essential to moral agency, virtue and vice, reward and +punishment, praise and blame," and to which I shall have occasion to +refer later. Finally, the explicit declarations of the Westminster +Confession of Faith and the Articles of the Church of England, that +man's will,--in the absence of grace,--cannot accomplish good works, +throw a curious light on the theological opponents of Determinism who +denounce it as anti-Christian and immoral. + + + + +II. + +"FREEDOM" AND "WILL." + + +To David Hume the dispute between the advocates of "Free-Will" and the +advocates of "Necessity" was almost entirely a matter of words. The +essence of the question, he thought, both sides were agreed on, and +consequently expressed the opinion that "a few intelligible definitions +would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy." That Hume +was over sanguine is shown by the controversy being still with us. Yet +his recommendation as to intelligible definitions, while pertinent to +all controversy, is specially so with regard to such a subject as that +of "Free-Will." For much of the anti-Determinist case actually rests +upon giving a misleading significance to certain phrases, while applying +others in a direction where they have no legitimate application. +Consider, for instance, the controversial significance of such a phrase +as "Liberty _versus_ Necessity"--the older name for Determinism. We all +love liberty, we all resent compulsion, and, as Mill pointed out, he who +announces himself as a champion of Liberty has gained the sympathies of +his hearers before he has commenced to argue his case. Such words play +the same part that "catchy" election cries do in securing votes. Such +phrases as "Power of Choice," "Sense of Responsibility," "Testimony of +Consciousness," "Consciousness of Freedom," are all expressions that, +while helpful and legitimate when used with due care and understanding, +as usually employed serve only to confuse the issue and prevent +comprehension. + +Not that the dispute between the Volitionist and the Determinist is a +merely verbal one. The controversy carries with it a significance of the +deepest kind. Fundamentally the issue expresses the antagonism of two +culture stages, an antagonism which finds expression in many other +directions. We are in fact concerned with what Tylor well calls the +deepest of all distinctions in human thought, the distinction that +separates Animism from Materialism. Much as philosophic ingenuity may do +in the way of inventing defences against the application of the +principle of causation to human action, the deeper our analysis of the +controversy, the more clearly is it seen that we are dealing with an +attenuated form of that primitive animism which once characterised all +human thinking. The persistence of types is a phenomenon that occurs as +frequently in the world of mind as it does in the world of biology. Or +just as when a country is overrun by a superior civilisation, primitive +customs are found lingering in remote districts, so unscientific modes +of thinking linger in relation to the more obscure mental processes in +spite of the conquests of science in other directions. + +It is well to bear these considerations in mind, even while admitting +that a great deal of the dispute does turn upon the fitness of the +language employed, and the accuracy with which it is used. And if +intelligible definition may not, as Hume hoped, end the controversy, it +will at least have the merit of making the issue plain. + +What is it that people have in their minds when they speak of the +"Freedom of the Will"? Curiously enough, the advocates of "free-will" +seldom condescend to favour us with anything so commonplace as a +definition, or if they do it tells us little. We are consequently +compelled to dig out the meanings of their cardinal terms from the +arguments used. Now the whole of the argument for "free-will" makes the +word "free" or "freedom" the equivalent to _an absence of determining +conditions_; either this, or the case for "free-will" is surrendered. +For if a man's decisions are in any way influenced--"influenced" is here +only another word for "determined"--Determinism is admitted. I need not +argue whether decisions are wholly or partly determined, the real and +only question being whether they are determined at all. What is called +by some a limited free-will is really only another name for unlimited +nonsense. + +"Freedom," as used by the Volitionist, being an equivalent for "absence +of determining conditions," let us ask next what this means. Here I am +brought to a dead halt. I do not know what it means. I cannot even +conceive it as meaning anything at all. At any rate, I am quite certain +that it is outside the region of scientific thought and nomenclature. +Scientifically, atoms of matter are not _free_ to move in any direction, +the planets are not _free_ to move in any shaped orbit, the blood is not +_free_ to circulate, the muscles are not _free_ to contract, the brain +is not _free_ to function. In all these cases what takes place is the +result of all converging circumstances and conditions. Given these and +the result follows. Scientifically, the thing that occurs is the only +thing possible. If the word "free" is used in science, it is as a figure +of speech, as when one speaks of a free gas, or of the blood not being +free to circulate owing to the existence of a constricted artery. But in +either case all that is meant is that a change in the nature of the +conditions gives rise to a corresponding change of result. The +determination of the gas or the blood to behave in a definite way is as +great in any case. From the point of view of science, then, to speak of +an absence of determining conditions is the most complete nonsense. All +science is a search for the conditions that determine phenomena. Save as +a metaphor, "freedom" has no place whatever in positive science. + +Are we then to discard the use of such a word as "freedom" altogether? +By no means. Properly applied, the word is intelligible and useful +enough. When, for instance, we speak of a free man, a free state, a free +country, or free trade, we are using the word "free" in a legitimate +manner, and can give to it a precise significance. A free state is one +in which the people composing it pursue their way uncoerced by other +states. A free man is one who is at liberty to exert bodily action or +express his opinions. We do not mean that in the first instance the +people are not governed by laws, or that physical conditions are without +influence on them; nor do we mean, in the second instance, that the +actions and opinions of the free man are not the result of heredity, +bodily structure, education, social position, etc. The obvious meaning +of "freedom" in each of these cases is an absence of external and +non-essential coercion. It does not touch the question of why we act as +we do, or of why we please to act in this or that manner. As Jonathan +Edwards puts it: "The plain, obvious meaning of the words 'freedom' and +'liberty' is power and opportunity, or advantage that any one has to do +as he pleases." Or as Hume put it more elaborately:-- + + "What is meant by liberty when applied to voluntary actions? We + cannot surely mean that actions have so little connection with + motives, inclinations, and circumstances that one does not + follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other. For + these are plain and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, + then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, + according to the determination of the will--that is, if we + choose to remain at rest we may; and if we choose to move, we + also may." + +The ultimate significance of "liberty" or "freedom" is thus +sociological. Here it expresses a fact; in positive science it is a mere +metaphor, and, as experience shows, a misleading one. Its use in +philosophy dates from the time of the Greeks, and when they spoke of a +free man they were borrowing an illustration from their social life. +There were slaves and there were free men, and in speaking of a free man +people were not so likely as they were at a later date to be misled by +a metaphor. Unfortunately, its use in philosophy has continued, while +its limitations have been ignored. To ask if a man is free is an +intelligible question. To ask whether actions are free from the +determining associations of organization and environment admits of but +one intelligible reply. Personally, I agree with Professor Bain that the +term "is brought in by main force, into a phenomenon to which it is +altogether incommensurable," and it would be well if it could be +excluded altogether from serious discussion[2]. + + [2] "The subjective sense of freedom, sometimes + alleged against Determinism, has no bearing on the + question whatever. The view that it has a bearing + rests upon the belief that causes compel their + effects, or that nature enforces obedience to its + laws as governments do. These are mere + anthropomorphic superstitions, due to assimilation + of causes with volitions, and of natural laws with + human edicts. We feel that our will is not + compelled, but that only means that it is not + other than we choose it to be. It is one of the + demerits of the traditional theory of causality + that it has created an artificial opposition + between determinism and the freedom of which we + are introspectively conscious." (Bertrand Russell, + _Mysticism and Logic_, p. 206.) + + So also Wundt: "Freedom and constraint are + reciprocal concepts; they are both necessarily + connected with consciousness; outside of + consciousness they are both imaginary concepts, + which only a mythologising imagination could relate + to things." (_Human and Animal Psychology_, p. + 426.) + +Now let us take that equally confusing word "will." Unfortunately, few +of those who champion the freedom of the will think it worth while to +trouble their readers with a clear definition of what they mean by it. +The orthodox definition of the will as "a faculty of the soul" tells us +nothing. It is explaining something the existence of which is +questioned by reference to something else the existence of which is +unknown. Or the definition is volunteered, "Will is the power to +decide," a description which only tells us that to will is to will. +Professor James tells us that "Desire, wish, will, are states of mind +which every one knows, and which no definition can make plainer." This +may be true of desire and wish; it certainly is not true of "will." +There is no question as to "will" being a state of mind, but as to every +one knowing its character, and above all possessing the knowledge +enabling him to discriminate between "will" and "desire" and "wish," +this is highly questionable. One may also be permitted the opinion that +if advocates of "free-will" were to seriously set themselves the task of +discovering what they do mean by "will," and also in what way it may be +differentiated from other mental states, the number of the champions of +that curious doctrine would rapidly diminish. + +What is it that constitutes an act of volition, or supplies us with the +fact of will? The larger part of our bodily movements do not come under +the heading of volition at all. The primary bodily movements are reflex, +instinctive, emotional, the action following without any interposition +of consciousness. Of course, an action that is performed quite +automatically at one time may be voluntarily performed at another time. +I may close my eyelid deliberately, or it may be because of the approach +of some foreign object. Or an action, if it be performed frequently, +tends to become automatic. To come within the category of a voluntary +action, it must be performed consciously, and there is also present +some consciousness of an end to be realized. Every voluntary action is +thus really dependent upon memory. A newly-born child has no volitions, +only reflexes. It is only when experience has supplied us with an idea +of what _may_ be done that we _will_ it shall be done. This +consideration alone is enough to shatter the case for the supposed +freedom of the will.[3] + + [3] The essential issue is again confused by the + language employed. If all volitional action is + action performed with the view to an end, a quite + correct and completely adequate word would be + "intentional"! If we were to speak of an + "intentional" action instead of a voluntary one, + the nature of the act would be clear, the factors + of experience, memory, consciousness of an end, + would be indicated, and the misleading + associations of "willing" avoided. It is + difficult, however, to introduce a new + terminology, and so I must beg the reader, in the + interests of clarity, to bear in mind that + whenever "voluntary action" is referred to, it is + "intentional" action that is connoted by the + phrase. + +If we analyze any simple act of volition what has just been said will be +made quite clear. I am sitting in a room and _will_ to open a window; it +may be to get fresh air, to look out, or for some other reason. Assume +that the first is the correct reason, the room being close and "stuffy." +First of all, then, I become aware of a more or less unpleasant feeling; +my experience tells me this is because the air in the room needs +purifying. Experience also tells me that by opening a window the desired +result will be obtained. Finally, I open the window and experience a +feeling of relief and satisfaction. Now had the room been without a +window, and the door bolted from the outside, or had the window been too +heavy for me to raise, no "volition" would have arisen. I should still +have had the desire for fresh air, but not seeing any means by which +this could be obtained, I should have had no _motive_ for action, and +should have remained perfectly passive. In order that my desire may +operate as a motive there must be not only a consciousness of a need, +but also a mental representation of the means by which that need is to +be gratified. I _will_ to do a thing, when allied to the desire for that +thing there is a conception of _how_ it is to be done, of the means to +be employed. Without this I have no motive, only a desire; without a +consciousness of the nature of the desire, there is nothing but pure +feeling. "Willing terminates with the prevalence of the idea...." +"Attention with effort is all that any case of volition implies." (Prof. +W. James, _Princip. of Psychology_, II. 560-1.) + +The stages of the process are, feeling rising into consciousness as +desire, the perception of the means to realize an end which raises the +desire from the statical to the dynamic stage of motive, and finally a +voluntary or intentional action. Now at no stage of this process is +there room for the intervention of any power or faculty not expressed in +a strictly sequential process. Of course, the action I have taken as an +example is an exceedingly simple one, but the more complex actions only +offer greater difficulties of analysis without leading to any different +result. This will be seen more clearly when we come to deal with +"choice" and "deliberation." From the moment that a certain stimulus +creates a desire in an organism, to the time that desire expresses +itself in action, there is no gap in the chain through which a +"Free-Will" may manifest its being. The physiologist points out that at +the basis of all our feelings and ideas there lie certain neural +processes. The psychologist takes up the story and from the dawn of +desire to action finds no break--or at least none that future knowledge +may not reasonably hope to make good. Want of knowledge may at present +prevent our tracing all the details of the process, but this is surely a +very inadequate ground on which to affirm the existence of a power at +variance with our knowledge of nature in other directions.[4] + + [4] Whether we work backward or forward the result + is the same. Strip off from the mind all feelings, + desires, all consciousness of ends and means to + ends, and what there is left is not a "will" ready + to throw the weight of its preference in this or + that direction, but a complete blank. + +Now in thus tracing the course of a voluntary action are we doing any +more than observing the action of desire in consciousness? If, yes, the +writer is quite unaware of the fact. If I remove all feeling, all +desire, all motive, "the will" disappears. Excite feeling, generate +desire, and there is the occasion for a voluntary action. Multiply the +number of desires and the operation of "will" becomes evident. Thus when +a writer like Professor Hyslop says, "If two motives offer different +attractions to the will," the reply is that the "will" is not one thing, +and motives other things, but two aspects of one fact. The "will" is not +something that decides or chooses between motives; the "will" is nothing +more than the name given to that motive or cluster of motives which is +sufficiently strong to overcome resistance and to express itself in +action. I emphasize the expression "overcome resistance" because without +competing motives and a sense of resistance we have no clear +consciousness of volition. Where only one desire is present in +consciousness, or where it is of overwhelming strength, feeling is +succeeded by action without any recognizable hiatus. It is the sense of +conflict, the break, that is essential to creating a lively sense of +volition, and also, as shall see later, to the sense of choice and +deliberation. But in speaking of an action as the expression of motives, +or as an expression of "will," both statements are identical so far as +the fact is concerned. We have not desires, motives, and "will," there +is simply a desire or desires that assume the quality of a motive by +being strong enough to result in action. As Spencer has put it, "Will is +no more an existence apart from the predominant feeling than a king is +an existence apart from the man occupying the throne." + +All that is to be found in any act of "will" is a desire accompanied by +the consciousness of an end. To put the same thing in another way, we +have a desire, the consciousness of an end and the means of realizing +it, and, finally, action. To the physiological and psychological +processes that culminate in action we give the name of motive. Properly +speaking a motive that does not issue in action--or inhibition--is not a +motive at all, it is a mere desire. And apart from the presence of +desire, or of desires, "will" does not exist. It is a pure abstraction, +valuable enough as an abstraction, but having no more real existence +apart from particular motives, than "tree" is a real existence apart +from particular trees. Physiologically, says Dr. Maudsley:-- + + "We cannot choose but reject _the_ will.... As physiologists we + have to deal with volition as a function of the supreme centres, + following reflection, varying in quantity and quality as its + cause varies, strengthened by education and exercise, enfeebled + by disuse, decaying with decay of structure.... We have to deal + with will not as a single undecomposable faculty unaffected by + bodily conditions, but as a result of organic changes in the + supreme centres, affected as certainly and as seriously by + disorders of them as our motor faculties are by disorders of + their centres." + +And, says Professor Sully, referring to _the_ will:-- + + "Modern scientific psychology knows nothing of such an entity. + As a science of phenomena and their laws, it confines itself to + a consideration of the processes of volition, and wholly + discards the hypothesis of a substantial will as unnecessary and + unscientific." + +Neither physiology nor psychology, neither a sane science nor a sound +philosophy, knows anything of, or can find use for, an autonomous +"will." "Will" as the final term of a discoverable series may be +admitted; "will" as a self-directing force, deciding whether particular +desires shall or shall not prevail, answers to nothing conformable to +our knowledge of man, and is plainly but the ghost of the wills and +souls of our savage ancestors. If instead of speaking of the freedom of +the will, we spoke of uncaused volitions, the position of the +volitionist would be clear, and its indefensible character plain to all. +But by giving the abstraction "will" a concrete existence, and by taking +from sociology a word such as "freedom" and using it in a sphere in +which it has no legitimate application, the issue is confused, and a +scientifically absurd theory given an air of plausibility. The dispute +between the Determinist and the Indeterminist is certainly not one of +words only, but it is one in which the cardinal terms employed need the +most careful examination if we are to clear away from the subject the +verbal fog created by theologians and metaphysicians. + + + + +III. + +CONSCIOUSNESS, DELIBERATION, AND CHOICE. + + +The one argument used by the Indeterminist against the Deterministic +position with some degree of universality is that of the testimony of +consciousness. It is the one to which practically all have appealed, and +which all have flattered themselves was simple in nature and convincing +in character. Professor Sidgwick, although he admitted that this +testimony might be illusory, yet asserted "There is but one opposing +argument of real force, namely, the immediate affirmation of +consciousness in the moment of deliberate action." And by the testimony +of consciousness must be meant, not, of course, a consciousness of +acting, but that at the moment of acting we could, _under identical +conditions_, have selected and acted upon an alternative that has been +rejected. I emphasize the phrase "under identical conditions," because +otherwise nothing is in dispute, and because, as we shall see, this +important consideration has not been always or even frequently borne in +mind. + +The question is, What does consciousness really tell us, and how far is +its testimony valid? In some directions it must be admitted that the +testimony of consciousness is absolute. In others it cannot, without +verification, claim any authority whatever. When I say that I have a +feeling of heat or coldness, of pleasure or pain, there is here a +direct deliverance of consciousness against which there is no appeal. +But consciousness does not and cannot tell me why I feel hot or cold, or +what is the cause of a pain I am experiencing. In this last case the +testimony of consciousness may be distinctly misleading. As it tells us +nothing of the existence of a brain, a nervous system, viscera, etc., +its testimony as to the cause of pain is obviously of no value. We are +conscious of states of mind, and that is all. A man seized with sudden +paralysis may be conscious of his power to move a limb, only to discover +by experience his impotence. In short, consciousness cannot, indeed does +not, tell us the causes of our states of mind. For this information we +are thrown back upon observation, experiment, and experience. We must, +then, make quite sure when we interrogate consciousness, exactly what it +is that consciousness says, and whether what it says is on a subject +that comes within its province. + +What is, then, the testimony of consciousness? When it is said that we +are conscious of our ability to have selected one alternative at the +time that another is chosen, I think this may be fairly met with the +retort that consciousness is unable to inform us as to our actual +ability to _do_ anything at all. I may be quite conscious of a desire to +jump a six foot fence, or lift a weight of half a ton, but whether I am +actually able to do so or not, only experience can decide. What I am +really conscious of is a desire to vault a given height or lift a given +weight, and it is surely an inexcusable confusion to speak of a desire +to do a particular thing as the equivalent of an ability to do it. If a +consciousness of desire equalled the ability to perform failure would be +but little known among men. + +All that consciousness really tells us is of the existence of passing +states of mind. It can tell us nothing of their origin, their value, or +their consequences. In the particular instance under consideration +consciousness informs us of the fact of choice, and this no Determinist +has ever dreamed of denying. He does assert that choice, as the +Indeterminist persists in using the term, is a delusion, but otherwise, +as will be shown later, he claims that it is only on deterministic lines +that choice can have any meaning or ethical significance. In any +voluntary action I am conscious of the possibility of choice and of +having chosen, and that is really all. What is the nature of that +possibility, and why I choose one thing rather than another--on these +points consciousness can give us no information whatever. One might as +reasonably argue that a consciousness of hunger gives us a knowledge of +the process of digestion, as argue that a consciousness of choice +supplies us with a knowledge of the mechanism of the process. We are +conscious of the presence of several desires, we are also conscious that +out of these several desires one is strong enough to rank as a motive, +but it tells us absolutely nothing of the causes or conditions that have +resulted in the emergence of that motive. Instead of telling us that we +could have acted in opposition to the strongest motive--which is really +the indeterminist position--consciousness simply reveals which desire is +the most powerful. We are conscious that other desires were present, we +are also aware of the possibility that another desire than the one that +actually prevailed might have been the most powerful; but when we admit +this and say that we _could_ have acted differently, we have really +displaced the actual conditions by imaginary ones. We _might_ have +preferred to act differently. This is not denied. It is not questioned +that we do choose, or that the same person chooses, differently or +different occasions. The question really is, Why have we chosen thus or +thus? And so far as consciousness is concerned we are quite in the dark +as to why one choice is made rather than another, what are the +conditions that give rise to our conscious desires, or why one desire is +more powerful than another. + +Consciousness, then, can testify only to the reality of its own states; +no more. It can tell us nothing of their causes. It cannot tell us that +man has a brain and nervous system, and can tell us nothing of the +connection between mental states and the condition of the bodily organs. +The chief factor in conduct (habit) lies outside the region of +consciousness altogether. In most cases we act as we have been in the +habit of acting, and our present conduct expresses the sum of our +previous actions and inclinations. Every action we perform assists the +formation of a habit, and with every repetition of a particular action +we find its performance easier. Indeed, a very powerful criticism of the +trustworthiness of consciousness is found in the fact that the +determining causes of conduct lie largely in the region of the +unconscious or subconscious, and of this territory consciousness can +tell us no more than a ripple on the surface of a river can tell us of +its depths. + +Next to the emphasis upon the testimony of consciousness the +Indeterminist lays special stress upon the facts of choice and +deliberation. Can we really say, it is asked, that man chooses and +deliberates, or even that in any genuine sense he does anything at all, +if all his actions are pre-determined by his constitution and +environment? If every act of man is determined and man himself a mere +stage in the process unending and unbroken, is it not idle to speak of +man deliberating on alternatives and choosing that which seems to him +best? We continue using words that on deterministic lines have lost all +meaning. And if Determinists do not realise this, it is because the +logical implications of their doctrines have never been fully explored. + +Well, it entirely depends upon the sense in which one uses the cardinal +terms in the discussion. If deliberation and choice when applied to +mental processes are used in the same sense as when these terms are used +as descriptive of the proceedings of a committee, then we can all agree +that deliberation would be as great a sham as it would be if the members +of a committee before meeting had determined upon their decision. But, +we may note in passing, that even here, when the deliberations are +genuine, the votes of each member are supposed to be decided by the +reasons advanced during the discussion--that is the decision of each +individual member is determined by the forces evoked during the +deliberations. + +The scientific method, and it may be added, the sane and profitable +method, is not to come to the study of a problem with ready-made +meanings and compel the facts, under penalty of disqualification, to +agree with them, but to let the facts determine what meaning is to be +attached to the words used. It is mere childish petulance for the +Indeterminist to say that unless certain words are used with _his_ +meaning they shall not be used at all, but shall be expelled from our +vocabulary. When gravity was conceived as a force moving downward +through infinite space, the existence of people on the other side of the +earth was denied as being contrary to the law of gravitation. A more +correct knowledge of the phenomena did not lead people to discard +gravity; the meaning of the word was revised. And really neither +language nor morality is the private property of the Indeterminist, and +he is, therefore, not at liberty to annihilate either for not coming up +to his expectations. He must submit to such revision of his ideas, or +his language, or of both, as more accurate knowledge may demand. + +The question is not, then, whether Determinism destroys deliberation and +choice and responsibility, but what meaning Determinism can legitimately +place upon these words, and is this meaning in harmony with what we know +to be true. With responsibility we will deal at length later. For the +present let us see what is really involved in the fact of choice. +Determinism, we are advised, must deny the reality of choice, because +choice assumes alternatives, and there can be no genuine alternatives if +events are determined. Let us see. If I am watching a stone rolling down +a hillside, and am in doubt as to whether it will pass to the right or +to the left of a given point, I shall not recognize any resident +capacity in the stone for choosing one path rather than the other. The +absence of consciousness in the stone precludes such an assumption. But +suppose we substitute for the stone a barefooted human being, and assume +that one path is smooth while the other is liberally sprinkled with +sharp pointed stones. There would then be an obvious reason for the +selection of one path, and no one would hesitate to say that here was an +illustration of the exercise of choice. Choice, then, is a phenomenon of +consciousness, and it implies a recognition of alternatives. But a +recognition of alternatives does not by any means imply that either of +two are equally eligible. It is merely a consciousness of the fact that +they exist, and that either might be selected were circumstances +favourable to its selection. Without labouring the point we may safely +say that all that is given in the fact of choice is the consciousness of +a choice. There is nothing in it that tells us of the conditions of the +selection, or whether it was possible for the agent to have chosen +differently or not. + +So far there is nothing in Determinism that is discordant with the fact +of choice, indeed, it has a perfectly reasonable theory of the process. +Why is there a choice or selection of things or actions? Clearly the +reason must be looked for in the nature of the thing selected, or in the +nature of the agent that selects, or in a combination of both factors. +Either there is an organic prompting in favour of the thing selected, as +when a baby takes a bottle of milk and rejects a bottle of vinegar, or +there is a recognition that the selection will enable the agent to +better realize whatever end he has in view. The alternatives are there, +and they are real in the only sense in which they can be real. But they +are not real in the sense of their being equally eligible--which is the +sense in which the Indeterminist uses the word. For that would destroy +choice altogether. Unless a selection is made because certain things +offer greater attractions than other things to the agent, no +intelligible meaning can be attached to such a word as "Choice." We +should have a mere blind explosion of energy, the direction taken no +more involving choice than the stone's path down a hillside. And if the +"Will" chooses between alternatives because one is more desirable than +the other, its "freedom" (in the Indeterminist sense) is sacrificed, and +the selection is correspondingly determined. There can be no real choice +in the absence of a determinative influence exercised by one of the +things chosen. + +But it is urged that this line of reasoning does not explain the feeling +of possibility that we have at the moment of action. I think it explains +possibility as it explains choice, provided we allow facts to determine +the meaning of words instead of torturing facts to suit certain forms of +language. If by possibility we mean that under identical conditions, +other things than those which actually occur are possible, then this may +be confidently met with a flat denial. If, on the other hand, it is +meant that by varying the conditions other possibilities become +actualities, this is a statement that to a Determinist is self-evident. +As a matter of fact, there are only two senses in which the word +"possibility" may be rightly used, and neither sense yields any evidence +against Determinism. + +One of these meanings is simply an expression of our own ignorance on +the matter that happens to be before us. If I am asked what kind of +weather we are likely to have a month hence, I should reply that it is +equally possible the day may be dry or wet, bright or dull. I do not +mean to imply that had I adequate knowledge it would not be as easy to +predict the kind of weather on that date as it is to predict the +position of Neptune. It is simply an expression of my own ignorance. +But, as Spinoza pointed out, possibility narrows as knowledge grows. To +complete ignorance anything is possible because the course of events is +unknown. As a comprehension of natural causation develops, people speak +less of what may possibly occur, and more of what will occur. +Possibility here has no reference to the course of events, only to our +knowledge, or want of knowledge, concerning their order. To say that it +is possible for a man to do either this or that is, so far as a +spectator is concerned, only to say that our knowledge concerning the +man's whole nature is not extensive enough, or exact enough for us to +predict what he will do. Nor is the case altered if instead of an +outsider, it is the agent himself who is incapable of prediction. For +all that amounts to is the assertion that the agent is ignorant of the +relative strength of desires that may be aroused under a particular +conjuncture of circumstances. + +The second sense of "possibility" depends upon our ability to imagine +conditions not actually present at the moment of action. By a trick of +imagination I can picture myself acting differently, or, on looking +back, I can see that I might have acted differently. But in either case +I have altered in thought the conditions that actually existed at the +moment of action. Generally, all it means is that with a number of +conflicting desires present, I am conscious that a very slight variation +in the relative strength of these desires would result in a different +course of conduct. And the conditions affecting conduct are so complex +and so easily varied that it is small wonder there is lacking in this +instance that sense of inevitability present when one is dealing with +physical processes. But the essential question is not whether a slight +change of conditions would produce a different result, but whether under +identical conditions two opposite courses of action are equally +possible? And this is not only untrue in fact, it is unthinkable, as a +formal proposition. Even the old adage, "There, but for the grace of +God, go I," while recognizing a different possibility, also recognized +that a variation in the factors--the elimination of the grace of God--is +essential if the possibility was to become an actuality. That the sense +of possibility implies more than this may be safely denied, let who will +make the opposite affirmation. + +This discussion of the nature and function of choice will help us to +realize more clearly than would otherwise be the case the nature of +deliberation. This question has always played an important part in the +Free-Will controversy, because it has stood as the very antithesis of a +reflex or obviously mechanical action. Deliberation, it has been argued, +does very clearly point to a determinative power exercised by the human +will, and a power that cannot be explained in the same terms with which +we explain other events. One anti-determinist writer remarks that "if a +volition is the effect of a 'motive,' it should follow immediately upon +the occurrence of the motive. But if there is deliberation between +motives, they do not seem to have casual power to initiate a volition +until a prior causal power directs them, and this would be the +deliberating subject." + +Now there are numerous cases, the majority probably, where action does +follow immediately upon the presence of desire. And in such cases we are +not aware of any process of deliberation, although there may be a truly +intentional action. And from this single case we have a whole series of +examples that will take us to the other extreme where the desires are so +numerous and so conflicting that an excess of deliberation may prevent +action altogether. Let us take an illustration. Sitting in my room on a +fine day I am conscious of a desire for a walk. Provided no opposing +feeling or desire is present I should at once rise and go out. But I may +be conscious of a number of other feelings based upon various +considerations. There is the fact of leaving the task on which I am +engaged, and the desire to get it finished. There is the trouble of +dressing, the consideration that once out I may wish I had stayed in, or +that it may rain, or that I may be needed at home: all these result in +a state of indecision, and induce deliberation. Imagination is excited, +ideal feelings are aroused, and eventually a choice is made. I decide on +the walk. What is it, now, that has occurred? My first desire for a walk +has been enforced by a representation of all the advantages that may be +gained by going out, and these have proved themselves strong enough to +bear down all opposition. Had any other desire gained strength, or had +the conviction that it would rain been strong enough, a different motive +would have emerged from this conflict of desires and ideas. No matter +how we vary the circumstances, this is substantially what occurs in +every case where deliberation and choice are involved. Not only is this +what does occur, but it is impossible to picture clearly any other +process. The only evidence we can have of the relative strength of ideas +is that one triumphs over others. To say that the weaker desire triumphs +is to make a statement the absurdity of which is self-evident. + +This conclusion cannot be invalidated by the argument that a particular +desire becomes the stronger because the "will" declares in its favour. +One need only ask, by way of reply, Why does the "will" declare in +favour of one desire rather than another? There is no dispute that a +choice is made. Those who say that a man can choose what he likes are +not making a statement that conflicts in the slightest degree with +Determinism. The Determinist says as clearly as anyone that I do what I +choose to do. The real question is why do I choose this rather than +that? Why does the "will" pronounce in favour of one desire rather than +another? No one can believe that all desires are of equal strength or +value to the agent. Such an assumption would be too absurd for serious +argument. But if all desires are not of equal strength and value, the +only conclusion left is that certain ones operate because they are, in +relation to the particular organism, of greater value than others. And +in that case we are simply restating Determinism. The action of the +environment is conditioned by the nature of the organism. The reaction +of the organism is conditioned by the character of the environment. The +resultant is a compound of the two. + +It is, moreover, an absurdity to speak of the "will" or the self as +though this were something apart from the various phases of +consciousness. In the contest of feelings and desires that calls forth +deliberation _I_ am equally involved in every aspect of the process. As +Professor James points out, "both effort and resistance are ours, and +the identification of our _self_ with one of these factors is an +illusion and a trick of speech." My self and my mental states are not +two distinct things; they constitute myself, and if these are eliminated +there is no self left to talk about. + +Further, in the growth of each individual, conscious and deliberative +action can be seen developing out of automatic action--the simplest and +earliest type of action. Not only does deliberative action develop from +reflex action, but it sinks into reflex action again. One of the +commonest of experiences is that actions performed at one time slowly +and after deliberation are at another time performed rapidly and +automatically. Every action contributes to the formation of a habit, and +frequently repetition results in the habit becoming a personal +characteristic. Deliberation and choice are not even always the mark of +a highly developed character; they may denote a poorly-developed +one--one that is ill adapted to social requirements. One man, on going +into a room where there is a purse of money, may only after long +deliberation and from conscious choice refrain from stealing it. Another +person, under the same conditions, may be conscious of no choice, no +effort, the desire to steal the purse being one that is foreign to his +nature. In two such by no means uncommon instances, we should have no +doubt as to which represented the higher type of character. Morally, it +is not the feeling, "I could have acted dishonestly instead of honestly +had I so chosen," that marks the ethically developed character, but the +performance of the right action at the right moment, without a +consciousness of tendency in the opposite direction. But the aim of +education is, in the one direction, to weaken the sense of choice by the +formation of right habits, moral and intellectual; and on the other hand +by bringing man into a more direct contact with a wider and more complex +environment, deliberation becomes one of the conditions of a +co-ordination of ideas and actions that will result in a more perfect +adaptation. + + + + +IV. + +SOME ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES OF DETERMINISM. + + +Not the least curious aspect of the Free-Will controversy is that those +who oppose Determinism base a large part of their argumentation upon the +supposed evil consequences that will follow its acceptance. In a work +from which I have already cited, Mr. F. C. S. Schiller falls foul of +Determinism because, he says, while incompatible with morality, its +champions nevertheless imagine they are leaving morality undisturbed. +The real difficulty of Determinism is, he says, that in its world, +events being fully determined, there can be no alternatives. Things are +what they must be. They must be because they are. No man can help doing +what he does. Man himself belongs to a sequence unending and unbroken. +"To imagine therefore that Determinism, after annihilating the moral +agent, remains compatible with morality, simply means that the logical +implications of the doctrine have never been fully explored." And he +adds: "The charge against it is not merely that it fails to do full +justice to the ethical fact of responsibility, but that it utterly +annihilates the moral agent." This, he says, is the real dilemma, and +Determinism has never answered it. + +It is curious that so clever a writer as Mr. Schiller should fail to +realize that taking Determinism in its most drastic form, and accepting +it in the most unequivocal manner, nothing can suffer, because +everything remains as it must be--including the facts, feelings, and +consequences of the moral life. Observe, it is part of Mr. Schiller's +case against Determinism that on determinist lines everything, down to +the minutest happenings, is the necessary result of all antecedent and +co-operating conditions. But this being the case, if Determinism leaves +no room for chance or absolute origination, how comes it that an +acceptance of Determinism initiates an absolutely new thing--the +destruction of morality? Surely it is coming very near the absurd to +charge Determinism with breaking an unbreakable sequence. It is surely +idle to credit Determinism with doing what is impossible for it to +accomplish. So far as morality is a real thing, so far as the facts of +the moral life are real things, Determinism must leave them +substantially unaltered. The problem is, as has been already said, to +find out for what exactly all these things stand. To read wrong meanings +into the facts of life, and then to declare that the facts cease to +exist if the meanings are corrected, is unphilosophical petulance. + +It is, indeed, quite open to the Determinist to meet these grave fears +as to the consequences of Determinism with a denial that morality is +vitally concerned with the question of whether man's "will" be "free" or +not. The question of Determinism may enter into the subject of how to +develop character along desirable lines; and, apart from Determinism, it +is difficult to see how there can be anything like a scientific +cultivation of character. But the fact of morality and the value of +morality are not bound up with whether conduct be the expression of +theoretically calculable factors, or whether it is, on the one side, +determined by a self which originates its own impulses. Determinism or +no Determinism, murder, to take an extreme illustration, is never likely +to become an every-day occupation in human society. Neither can any +other action that is obviously injurious to the well-being of society be +practised beyond certain well-defined limits. The laws of social health +operate to check socially injurious actions, as the laws of individual +health operate to check injurious conduct in dietary or in hygiene. +Determinists and Indeterminists, as may easily be observed, manifest a +fairly uniform measure of conduct, and whatever variations from the +normal standard each displays cannot well be put down to their +acceptance or rejection of Determinism. + +The real nature of morality is best seen if one asks oneself the +question, "What is morality?" Let us imagine the human race reduced to a +single individual. What would then be the scope and character of +morality? It is without question that a large part of our moral rules +would lose all meaning. Theft, murder, unchastity, slander, etc., would +be without meanings, for the simple reason that there would be none +against whom such offences could be committed. Would there be any moral +laws or moral feelings left? Would there even be a man left under such +conditions? One might safely query both statements. For if we take away +from this solitary individual all that social culture and intercourse +have given him--language, knowledge, habits both mental and moral, all, +in short, that has been developed through the agency of the social +medium--man, as we know him, disappears, and a mere animal is left in +his place. Even the feeling that a man has a duty to himself, and that +to realize his highest possibilities is the most imperative of moral +obligations, is only an illustration of the same truth. For very little +analysis serves to show that even this derives its value from the +significance of the individual to the social structure. + +Morality, then, is wholly a question of relationship. Not whether my +actions spring from a self-determined "will" or even whether they are +the inevitable consequent of preceding conditions makes them moral or +immoral, but their influence in forwarding or retarding certain ideal +social relations. The rightness or wrongness of an action lies in its +consequences. Whether one is of the Utilitarian or other school of +morals does not substantially affect the truth of this statement. Action +without consequences--assuming its possibility--would have no moral +significance whatever. And consequences remain whether we accept or +reject Determinism. Determinism cannot alter or regulate the +consequences of actions, it can only indicate their causes and their +results. What a science of morals is really concerned with is, +objectively, the consequences of actions, and subjectively the feelings +that lead to their performance. When a science of morals has determined +what actions best promote desirable relations between human beings, and +what states of mind are most favourable to the performance of such +actions, its task as a science of morals is concluded. The genesis of +such states of mind belongs to psychology, just as to sociology belong +the creation and maintenance of such social conditions as will best give +them expression and actuality. + +The question of the moral consequences of Determinism is not, therefore, +discussed because we believe there is any relevancy in the issue thus +raised, but solely because it is raised, and not to deal with it may +create a prejudice against Determinism. Many of those who quite admit +the scientific character of Determinism, yet insist on the necessity for +some sort of Indeterminism in the region of morals. Professor William +James, for instance, admits that a profitable study of mental phenomena +is impossible unless we postulate Determinism (_Prin. Psych._ ii. 573). +But having admitted this, and in fact illustrated it through the whole +of his two volumes, his next endeavour is to find a place for +"free-will" as a "moral postulate." The region of morals is thus made to +play the part of a haven of refuge for illegitimate and unscientific +theories, a kind of workhouse for all mental vagrants found at large +without visible means of support. The moral postulate which is to +reinstate "Free-Will," is that "What ought to be can be, and that bad +acts cannot be fated, but that good ones must be possible in their +place." In a writer usually so clear this somewhat ambiguous deliverance +is far more indicative of a desire to befriend an oppressed theory than +of the possession of any good evidence in its behalf. + +The matter really turns upon what is meant by "ought" and "possible." It +has already been pointed out that if by "possible" it is meant that +although one thing actually occurs, another thing--a different +thing--might have occurred without any alteration in the accompanying +conditions, the statement is not only untrue in fact, but it is +inconceivable as possibly true. And if it does not mean this, then +Professor James is merely stating what every Determinist most cheerfully +endorses. But in that case the "possibility" gives no support whatever +to the Indeterminist. Further, Professor James says that Determinism is +a clear and seductive conception so long as one "stands by the great +scientific postulate that the world must be one unbroken fact, and that +prediction of all things without exception must be ideally, even if not +actually, possible." On which one may enquire, how prediction could be +at all possible unless, given the co-operating conditions, a definite +and particular result is inevitable? But if prediction be possible--and +the whole power of science lies in its power of prediction--what becomes +of the value of "possibility" to the Indeterminist? Is it any more than +an expression of our ignorance of the power of particular factors, and a +consequent ignorance of their resultant? + +To say that certain things "ought" to be, or that one "ought" to act in +this or that particular manner, are common expressions, and within +limits, relevant and intelligible expressions. But "ought" here clearly +stands for no more than ideal conception. Its reference is to the +future, not to the past. It does not imply a belief that things could +have resulted other than those which actually did result, but a belief +that given a suitable alteration in the conditions different results +might ensue in the future. When, for example, I say that men ought to +think wisely, I do not affirm either that all men do think wisely, or +that foolish men can do so without some change in their mental make-up. +I merely eliminate all those conditions that make for unwise thinking, +leaving wise thinking as the only possible result. That is, recognizing +that from different conditions different consequences will follow, in +imagination, all forces that are inimical to the ideal end are +eliminated. We say that no man ought to commit murder, and yet if we +take as an illustration the congenital homicide, no one can assert that +in his case, at least, anything but murder is possible, given favourable +conditions for its perpetration. Or if it is said that congenital +homicide is a purely pathological case, it may surely be asserted that +the same general considerations apply to cases that are not classified +as pathological. The more we know of the criminal's heredity, +environment, and education, the more clearly it is seen that his deeds +result from the inter-action of these factors, and that these must be +modified if we are reasonably to expect any alteration in his conduct. +In fact, the criminal--or the saint--being what he is as the result of +the inter-action of possibly calculable factors is the essential +condition towards making "the prediction of all things" ideally, if not +actually possible. In saying, then, that a man ought not to do wrong, +we are only saying that our ideal of a perfect man eliminates the idea +of wrong-doing, and that our imagination is powerful enough to construct +a human character to which wrong-doing shall be alien. + +The fallacy here is due to a confusion of the actual with the desirable. +If we are looking to the past we are bound to say that "ought" is +meaningless, because what has been is the only thing that could have +been. Thus it is meaningless to say that a piece of string capable of +withstanding a strain of half a hundredweight ought to have withstood a +strain of half a ton. It is equally absurd to say that a man ought to +have withstood the germ of malarial fever, when his constitution +rendered him susceptible to attack. Both of these instances will be +readily admitted. Is it, then, any more reasonable to say that a man +ought to have withstood a temptation to drunkenness, or theft, or +cruelty--in the sense that given his nature he _could_ have withstood +it--when all the circumstances of character, heredity, and environment +made for his downfall? We say that certain considerations "ought" to +have restrained Jones because they were enough to restrain Smith. Are +we, then, to conclude that Smith and Jones are so much alike--are, in +fact, identical in character--that the same forces will influence each +in the same manner and to the same degree? The assumption is obviously +absurd. What ought to have happened with Smith and Jones, bearing in +mind all the conditions of the problem, is what did happen. What ought +to happen to Smith and Jones in the future will be equally dependent +upon the extent to which the character of the two becomes modified. In +this sense our conception of what "ought" to be in the future will guide +us as to the nature of the influences we bring to bear upon Smith and +Jones. We believe that good actions may be possible in the future where +bad ones occurred in the past, because we see that a change of +conditions may produce the desired result. The "moral postulate," +therefore, does not contain anything, or imply anything, in favour of +Indeterminism. It does assert that certain things ought to be, but it +can only realize this by recognizing, and acting upon the recognition, +that just as certain forces in the past have issued in certain results, +so a modification in the nature or incidence of these forces will +produce a corresponding modification of conduct in the future. Whatever +else there appears to be in the "ought" is a mere trick of the +imagination; and the surprising thing is that a writer of the calibre of +Professor James should not have been perfectly alive to this. + +A cruder form of the same position, although introducing other issues, +was upheld by Dr. Martineau in the categorical statement, "either +free-will is a fact, or moral judgment a delusion." His reason for this +remarkable statement is:-- + + "We could never condemn one turn of act or thought did we not + believe the agent to have command of another; and just in + proportion as we perceive, in his temperament or education or + circumstances, the certain preponderance of particular + suggestions, and the near approach to an inner necessity, do we + criticize him rather as a natural object than as a responsible + being, and deal with his aberrations as maladies instead of + sins."[5] + + [5] _Types of Ethical Theory_, vol. ii. p. 41. + +Well, human nature might easily have been nearer perfection than it is +had moral aberrations been treated as maladies rather than sins, and one +certainly would not have felt greater regret had judges and critics +always been capable of rising to this level of judgment. Social, +political, and religious malevolence might not have received the +gratification and support it has received had this been the rule of +judgment and the guide to methods of treatment, but our social +consciousness would have been of a superior texture than is now the +case. And one may ask whether there is any human action conceivable for +which an adequate cause cannot be found in temperament or education or +circumstances, or in a combination of the three? It would tax any one's +ingenuity to name an action that lies outside the scope of these +influences. Temperament, education, circumstances, are the great and +controlling conditions of human action, and only in proportion as this +is recognized and acted upon do we approach a science of human nature +and begin to realize methods of profitable modification. + +Against Determinism Dr. Martineau argues that "the moral life dwells +exclusively in the voluntary sphere," and also that "impulses of +spontaneous action do not constitute character." The first of these +statements is at least very debatable, although it may turn upon a +matter of definition. But the second statement is distinctly inaccurate. +One may assert the exact opposite, and instead of saying that the +impulses of spontaneous action do not constitute character, argue that +they are the truest indications of character. Of course, from one point +of view, all that a man does, whether it be spontaneous or reflective, +must be equally the expression of the whole man. But from another point +of view the more permanent and enduring characteristics of a man may be +overborne by a passing flood of emotion or by a casual combination of +unusual circumstances. By these means an habitually mean man may be +roused to acts of generosity, an habitual thief roused to acts of +honesty. Long reflection may cause a person to decide this or that, when +his spontaneous impulses are in the contrary direction. And while these +reflections and floods of emotion are equally with the spontaneous +impulses part of a given personality, yet it will hardly be disputed +that the latter are the more deeply seated, will express themselves in a +more uniform manner, and are thus a truer and more reliable index to the +character of the person with whom we are dealing. + +How far we are to accept morality as dwelling exclusively in the +voluntary, that is the intentional, sphere, is, as I have said, largely +a matter of definition. We may so define morality that it shall cover +only intentional acts, in which case the statement must be accepted, or +we can define morality in a wider sense, as covering all action by means +of which desirable relations between people are maintained, in which +case the statement is not true. For we should then be committed to the +curious position that all moral development tends to make man less +moral. To have the quality of voluntariness an act must be consciously +performed with a particular end in view. But a large part of the more +important functions of life do not come under this category, while a +still larger portion are only semi-voluntary. The whole set of instincts +that cluster round the family, the feelings which urge human beings to +seek others' society, and which are the essential conditions of all +social phenomena, do not properly come under the head of volition. Our +conduct in any of these directions may easily be justified by reason, +but it would be absurd to argue that there is any intentional choice +involved. + +Moreover, the chief aim of education, of the moralization of character, +is to divest actions of their quality of reflectiveness or intention. +Our aim here is so to fashion character that it will unquestioningly and +instinctively place itself on the right side. This is a force that +operates on all individuals more or less, and from the cradle to the +grave. Family influences curb and fashion the egotism of the child until +there is an unconscious and often unreasoning adherence to the family +circle. Social influences continue the work and train the individual +into an instinctive harmony, more or less complete with the structure of +the society to which he belongs. The mere repetition of a particular +action involves the formation of a habit, and habit is meaningless in +the absence of a modified nerve structure which reacts in a special +manner. Persistence in right action, therefore, no matter how +consciously it may be performed in its initial stages, inevitably passes +over into unconscious or instinctive action. And let it be noted, too, +that it is only when this change has been brought about that a person +can be said to be a thoroughly moralized character. It is not the man +who does right after a long internal struggle that is most moral, but +the one with whom doing right is the most imperative of organic +necessities. We praise the man who does right after struggle, but +chiefly because of our admiration at the triumph of right over wrong, or +because his weakness cries for support, or because he has in him the +making of a more perfect character. But to place him as the superior of +one whose right doing is the efflorescence of his whole nature is to +misunderstand the ethical problem. And equally to confine morality to +merely voluntary or intentional action is to truncate the sphere of +morals to an extent that would meet with the approval of very few +writers on ethics. In brief, one may not merely say with Lessing, +"Determinism has nothing to fear from the side of morals," one may add +that it is only on the theory of Determinism that the moralization of +character becomes a rational possibility. + + + + +V. + +PROFESSOR JAMES ON "THE DILEMMA OF DETERMINISM." + + +We have seen in what has gone before how much of the case for Free-Will +is based upon the wrong use of language, and upon a display of petulance +arising from the degree to which it is assumed that the universe ought +to fulfil certain _a priori_ expectations. In this last respect the +Volitionist behaves as if he were on a kind of shopping excursion, with +full liberty to purchase or reject the goods brought out for inspection. +Both of these points are well illustrated in an apology for +Indeterminism offered by Professor William James, and although in +examining his argument it may be necessary to repeat in substance some +of the arguments already used, this will not be without its value in +enabling the reader to realize the shifts to which the defender of +Free-Will is compelled to resort. In justice to Professor James, +however, it is only fair to point out that it is not quite clear that he +is thoroughly convinced of the position he sees fit to state. Much of +his argument reads as though he were merely stating a speculation that +might prove valuable, but which might also turn out valueless. Still, +whatever conviction he has, or had, appears to lean to the side of +Indeterminism, and I shall accordingly deal with his argument as though +he were quite convinced of its soundness. + +In his chief work, _The Principles of Psychology_, Professor James took +up the perfectly sane position that a man would be foolish not to +espouse "the great scientific postulate" that the prediction of all +things without exception must be possible, and drew a proper distinction +between what is ideally possible--that is to complete knowledge--and +what is actually possible to incomplete knowledge. In a later +deliverance he, for the time at least, forsakes this position and +champions a case which rests for its coherence very largely upon the +neglect of those precautions previously insisted on.[6] To suit the +necessities of the argument the Determinist is made to say things that I +think few, if any, determinists ever dreamed of saying, while certain +leading words are used with a meaning obviously framed to meet the +requirements of the case. + + [6] See the lecture on "The Dilemma of + Determinism" in the volume _The Will to Believe, + and other Essays_. London; 1903. + +At the outset of his essay Professor James remarks that if a certain +formula--in this case the Determinist formula--"for expressing the +nature of the world violates my moral demands, I shall feel as free to +throw it overboard, or at least to doubt it, as if it disappointed my +demand for uniformity of sequence." And he proceeds to argue that all +our scientific "laws" are ideal constructions, built up in order to +satisfy certain demands of our nature. Uniformity in nature is thus as +much a formula framed to this end as is Free-Will. "If this be +admitted," he says, "we can debate on even terms." + +Unfortunately for the Professor's argument the two instances are not +analogous--not, at least, in the direction required. The sense of +causality is not something that is innate in human nature. Children at +an early age hardly possess it, and primitive man has it in only a very +vague manner. The conviction that all things are bound together in terms +of causation is one that belongs, even to-day, to the educated, +thoughtful mind. At any rate it is a conviction that has been forced +upon the human mind by the sheer pressure of experience. It is a growth +consequent upon the mind's intercourse with the objective universe. And +its validity is not called into question. On the other hand, this +assumed "moral demand" for "Free-Will" is the very point in dispute. +Whether there is such a demand, and if so is it a legitimate one, are +the questions upon which the discussion turns. And it will not do for +Professor James to claim Free-Will in the name of certain "moral +demands" and reserve the right to throw overboard any theory that does +not grant them. Man's moral nature, equally with his intellectual +nature, must in the last resort yield to facts. It will not do to exalt +into a moral instinct what may be no more than a personal idiosyncrasy. +There is certainly no more than this in such expressions as "something +must be fatally unreasonable, absurd, and wrong in the world," or "I +deliberately refuse to keep on terms of loyalty with the universe," if +certain things turn out to be true. Such phrases are completely out of +place in a scientific enquiry. The universe will remain what it is +whether we call it absurd or rational, and may even survive the raising +of the standard of revolt by so eminent a psychologist as Professor +James, to whom we would commend, were he still alive, Schopenhauer's +profound remark that there are no moral phenomena, only moral +interpretations of phenomena. + +What, now, is the insuperable dilemma which Professor James places +before upholders of Determinism? The whole of it turns out to be little +more than a play upon the words "possible" and "actual." Determinism, he +says, professes that "those parts of the universe already laid down +absolutely appoint and decree (Why 'appoint' and 'decree'? Why not the +impersonal word 'determine?') what the other parts shall be." The future +is determined by the past; and given the past, only one future is +possible. Indeterminism says that "the parts have a certain amount of +loose play on one another, so that the laying down of one of them does +not necessarily determine what the others shall be." Thus, still +following Professor James's exposition, given a special instance, both +sides admit the occurrence of a volition. The Determinist asserts that +no other volition could have occurred. The Indeterminist asserts that +another volition might have occurred, other things remaining the same. +And, asks the Professor, can science tell us which is correct? His reply +is, No. "How can any amount of assurance that something actually +happened give us the least grain of information as to whether another +thing might or might not have happened in its place? Only facts can be +proved by other facts. With things that are possibilities and not +facts, facts have no concern." + +The position may be made clearer by taking the Professor's own +illustration. When, he says, I leave this lecture hall I may go home +_via_ Divinity Avenue, or traverse Oxford Street. It is a matter of +chance which route is selected. But assume that by some miracle, after +having walked down Divinity Avenue, ten minutes of time are annihilated, +and reaching the Hall door again Oxford Street is the route selected. +Spectators thus have two alternative universes. One universe with the +Professor walking through Divinity Avenue, the other with him walking +through Oxford Street. If the spectators are Determinists they will +believe only one universe to have been from eternity possible. But, asks +Professor James, looking outwardly at these two universes, can anyone +say which is the accidental and which is the necessary one? "In other +words, either universe _after the fact_ and once there would, to our +means of observation and understanding, appear just as rational as the +other." There is no means by which we can distinguish chance from a +rational necessity. A universe which allows a certain loose play of the +parts is as rational as one which submits to the most rigid determinism. + +Before dealing with the above, it is necessary to take another phrase on +which much of the above argument depends. Professor James says that the +stronghold of the Determinist sentiment is antipathy to the idea of +"Chance," and chance is a notion not to be entertained by any sane mind. +And the sting, he says, seems to rest on the assumption that chance is +something positive, and if a thing happens by chance it must needs be +irrational and preposterous. But I am not aware that any scientific +Determinist ever used "chance" as being a positive term at all. +Certainly the last thing the present writer would dream of doing would +be to predicate chance of any portion of the objective universe +whatsoever. The only legitimate use of the word is in reference to _the +state of our knowledge concerning phenomena_. To say that a thing +chanced, or happened by chance, is only saying that we are not aware of +the causes that produced it. We say nothing of the thing itself, we only +express the state of our mind in relation to it. + +Professor James says all you mean by "chance" is that a thing is not +guaranteed, it may fall out otherwise. Not guaranteed by our knowledge +about the thing, certainly; in any other sense, his definition seems +invented for the express purpose of bolstering up his hypothesis. For, +he says, a chance thing means that the general system of things has no +hold on it. It appears in relation to other things, but it escapes their +determining influence, and appears as "a free gift." Thus whether he +walked down Divinity Avenue or Oxford Street was a matter of chance; and +the future of the world is full of similar chances--events that may take +one of several forms, either of which is consistent with the whole. + +We now have the essence of Professor James's case, and can consider it +in detail. First of all we may note the curiously double sense in which +Professor James uses the word "fact" and the agility with which he skips +from one meaning to another, as it suits his argument. In a broad and +general sense a mental fact is as much a fact as any other fact. A man +riding on horseback is a fact. My vision or conception of a horse with +the head of a man is equally a fact, though nothing like it exists in +nature. We should discriminate between the two by saying that one is a +mental fact strictly relative to a particular mind, the other is an +objective fact relative to all minds normally constituted. Now science +does not deny possibilities as _mental facts_. But it would be a very +queer science indeed that allowed all sorts of possibilities of a given +group of phenomena _under identical conditions_. Like "chance," the +possibilities of the Universe are strictly relative to our knowledge +concerning it. If opposite things appear equally possible, it is only +because we are not sufficiently conversant with the processes to say +which thing is certain. A universe with Professor James walking down +Divinity Avenue appears as orderly and as natural as one with him +parading Oxford Street. But this is because we cannot unravel the +complex conditions that may determine the selection of one route or the +other. Or if it be said in reply, that the walker is unaware of any +choice in the matter, the answer is that there is present the desire to +get away from the lecture hall and arrive at home, and this is strong +enough to make the choice of means to that end unimportant. If the +choice lay between walking down a sunlit street or wading through a mile +of water, five feet deep, while the latter would still remain a +possibility, since it could be done were the inducement to do it strong +enough, there is not much doubt as to what the choice would actually be. + +The complete reply therefore to Professor James's illustration is that +from the standpoint of mere possibility, bearing in mind the proper +significance of possibility, opposite alternatives may be equally real. +We can, that is, conceive conditions under which a certain thing may +occur, and we can conceive another set of conditions under which exactly +the opposite may occur. And either alternative presents us with a +universe that is equally "rational," because in either case we vary the +co-operating conditions in order to produce the imagined consequence. +But given a complete knowledge of all the co-operating conditions, and +not only do two views of the universe cease to be equally rational, but +one of them ceases to be even conceivable. For let us note that the +resultant of any calculation is no more and no less than a synthesis of +the factors that are included in the calculation. If we do not +understand the factors included in a given synthesis it will be a matter +of "chance" what the resultant may be. But if we do understand the +nature of the factors, and the consequence of their synthesis, +possibility and actuality become convertible terms. Finally, whether a +man on leaving a lecture hall turns to the right or the left appears, +under ordinary conditions, equally rational and natural only because we +are aware that it may be a matter of indifference which direction he +takes, and in that case his action will be governed by the simple +desire to get away, or to get to a particular spot. It is a simple +deduction from experience presented by Professor James in a needlessly +confusing manner. + +The next, and practically the only example cited by Professor James to +prove that this world is a world of "chances," is concerned with a +question of morals. We constantly, he says, have occasion to make +"judgments of regret." In illustration of this, he cites the case of a +particularly brutal murder, and adds, "We feel that, although a perfect +mechanical fit to the rest of the universe, it is a bad moral fit, and +that something else would really have been better in its place." But +"calling a thing bad means, if it means anything at all, that the thing +ought not to be, that something else ought to be in its stead." If +Determinism denies this it is defining the universe as a place "in which +what ought to be is impossible," and this lands us in pessimism, or if +we are to escape pessimism we can only do so by abandoning the judgment +of regret. But if our regrets are necessitated nothing else can be in +their place, and the universe is what it was before--a place in which +what ought to be appears impossible. Murder and treachery cannot be good +without regret being bad, regret cannot be good without murder and +treachery being bad. As both, however, are foredoomed, something must be +fatally wrong and absurd in the world. + +Now, I must confess all this seems a deal of bother concerning a fairly +simple matter. Indeed, Professor James seems to be engaged in raising a +dust and then complaining of the murkiness of the atmosphere. Coming +from a writer of less standing I might, in view of what has been said +elsewhere in this essay, have left the reply to the careful reader's +understanding of the subject. But from so eminent a psychologist as +William James, silence might well be construed as deterministic +inability to reply to the position laid down. + +In the first place, I may be pardoned for again reminding the reader +that, in this connection, "ought" stands upon precisely the same level +as "possible." Whether we say that a man ought to do a certain thing, or +that it is possible for him to do a certain thing, we are making +identical statements, for no one would dream of saying that a man ought +to do that which it is impossible for him to perform. When we say that +murder and treachery ought not to be, we do not imply--if we use +language properly--that these are not as much part of the cosmic order, +and as much the expression of co-operating conditions, as are kindness +and loyalty. It is saying no more than that in our judgment human nature +may be so trained and conditioned as to practise neither murder nor +treachery. We are expressing a judgment as to what our ideal of human +nature is, and our ideal of what human nature should be is based upon +what experience has taught us concerning its possibilities. Man's +"judgment of regret" is justifiable and admirable, not because he +recognizes that the past could have been different from what it was, but +because it furnishes him with the requisite experience for a better +direction of action in the future, and because the feeling of regret is +itself one of the determining conditions that will decide conduct in +the future. + +"The question," says Professor James, "is of things, not of eulogistic +names for them." With this I cordially agree; but in that case what are +we to make of the following:-- + + "The only consistent way of representing ... a world whose parts + may affect one another through their conduct being either good + or bad is the indeterminate way. What interest, zest, or + excitement can there be in achieving the right way, unless we + are enabled to feel that the wrong way is also a possible and a + natural way--nay, more, a menacing and an imminent way? And what + sense can there be in condemning ourselves for taking the wrong + way, unless we need have done nothing of the sort, unless the + right way was open to us as well? I cannot understand the + willingness to act, no matter how we feel, without the belief + that acts are really good or bad. I cannot understand the belief + that an act is bad, without regret at its happening. I cannot + understand regret without the admission of real genuine + possibilities in the world." + +Eliminate from this all that is matter of common agreement between +Determinists and Indeterminists, and what have we left but sheer verbal +confusion? The pleasurable feeling that results from a sense of +achievement is real no matter what are the lines on which the universe +is constructed. One might as reasonably ask, Why feel a greater +interest in a first-class orchestral performance, than in the harmonic +outrages of a hurdy-gurdy, since both are, from the physical side, +vibratory phenomena? And is it not clear, to repeat a truth already +emphasized, that a most important factor in our condemning ourselves for +doing a wrong action is the fact that we have done so. It is one of the +determining conditions of doing better actions in future. Of course, +Professor James cannot understand the belief that an act is bad, without +regret at its happening. Neither can anyone else, for the simple reason +that one involves the other. The statement is as much a truism as is the +one that we can have no willingness to act unless we believe that acts +are either good or bad. Equally true is it that regret implies real +possibilities in the world--not always, though, for we may regret death +or the radiation into extra terrestrial space of solar energy without +believing that the prevention of either is possible. But our +possibilities in relation to conduct do not, as the argument implies, +relate to the past, but to the future. Indeed, the sense of possibility +would be morally worthless were it otherwise. + +Finally, and this brings me to what is one of the cardinal weaknesses of +so much of the writing on psychology, Professor James's argument is +vitiated by non-recognition of the fact that regret and satisfaction, +praise and blame, with most of the cardinal moral qualities, are +_social_ in their origin and application. They represent the reaction of +our social feelings against anti-social conduct, or their expression of +satisfaction at conduct of an opposite character. They are consequently +the creations, not of an indwelling "will," but of an outdwelling social +relationship. They are not impressed by the "ego" upon the world, they +are impressed by the world upon the ego. Character is not something that +each individual brings ready fashioned to the service of society; it is +something that society itself creates. It has been fashioned by +countless generations of social evolution, and, in the main, that +evolution has of necessity placed due emphasis upon those intellectual +and moral qualities on which social welfare depends. + + + + +VI. + +THE NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY. + + +If Hume was not right in asserting that a few intelligible definitions +would put an end to the Free-Will controversy, his error lay in assuming +a greater receptivity of mind than most people possess. For it may +safely be asserted that once the legitimate meanings of the terms +employed are acknowledged, and they are properly applied to the matter +in dispute, it may be shown that the opponents of Determinism have been +beating the air. The Determinism they attack is not the Determinism that +is either professed or defended. The consequences they forecast follow +only from a distorted, and often meaningless, use of the terms employed. +Instead of the Determinist denying the moral and mental value of certain +qualities of which the Indeterminist announces himself the champion, he +admits their value, gives them a definite meaning, and proves that it is +only by an assumption of the truth of the cardinal principle of +Determinism that they have any reality. This has already been shown to +be true in the case of Freedom, Choice, Deliberation, etc.; it remains +to pursue the same method with such conceptions as praise and blame or +punishment and reward, and responsibility. + +The charge is, again, that Determinism robs praise and blame and +responsibility of all meaning, and reduces them to mere verbal +expressions which some may mistake for the equivalents of reality, but +which clearer thinkers will estimate at their true worth. What is the +use of praising or blaming if each one does what heredity, constitution, +and environment compels? Why punish a man for being what he is? Why hold +him responsible for the expressions of a character provided for him, and +for the influence of an environment which he had no part in forming? So +the string of questions run on. None of them, it may safely be said, +would ever be asked if all properly realized the precise meaning and +application of the terms employed. For as with the previous terms +examined, it is an acceptance of Indeterminism that would rob these +words of all value. Rationally conceived they are not only consonant +with Determinism, but each of them implies it. + +Of the four terms mentioned above--Praise, Blame, Punishment, and +Responsibility, the cardinal and governing one is the last. It will be +well, therefore, to endeavour to fix this with some degree of clearness. + +To commence with we may note that in contra-distinction to "freedom" +where the testimony of consciousness is illegitimately invoked, a +consciousness of responsibility is essential to its existence. A person +in whom it was manifestly impossible to arouse such a consciousness +would be unhesitatingly declared to be irresponsible. There is here, +consequently, both the fact of responsibility and our consciousness of +it that calls for explanation. And both require for an adequate +explanation a larger area than is offered by mere individual psychology. +Indeed, so long as we restrict ourselves to the individual we cannot +understand either the fact or the consciousness of responsibility. By +limiting themselves in this manner some Determinists have been led to +deny responsibility altogether. The individual, they have said, does not +create either his own organism or its environment, and consequently all +reasonable basis for responsibility disappears. To which there is the +effective reply that the datum for responsibility is found in the nature +of the organism and in the possibility of its being affected by certain +social forces, and not in the absolute origination of its own impulses +and actions. It is playing right into the hands of the Indeterminist to +deny so large and so important a social phenomenon as responsibility. +And to the Indeterminist attack, that if action is the expression of +heredity, organism, and environment, there is no room for +responsibility, there is the effective reply that it is precisely +because the individual's actions are the expression of all the forces +brought to bear upon him that he may be accounted responsible. The +Determinist has often been too ready to take the meanings and +implications of words from his opponent, instead of checking the sense +in which they were used. + +The general sense of responsibility--omitting all secondary meanings--is +that of accountability, to be able to reply to a charge, or to be able +to answer a claim made upon us. This at once gives us the essential +characteristic of responsibility, and also stamps it as a phenomenon of +social ethics. A man living on a desert island would not be responsible, +unless we assume his responsibility to deity; and even here we have the +essential social fact--relation to a person--reintroduced. It is our +relations to others, that and the influence of our actions upon others, +combined with the possibility of our natures being affected by the +praise or censure of the social body to which we belong, which sets up +the fact of responsibility. Conduct creates a social reaction, good or +bad, agreeable or disagreeable, and the reacting judgment of society +awakens in each of us a consciousness of responsibility, more or less +acute, and more or less drastic, to society at large. The individual +sees himself in the social mirror. His nature is fashioned by the social +medium, his personal life becomes an expression of the social life. Just +as the social conscience, in the shape of a legal tribunal, judges each +for actions that are past, so the larger social conscience, as expressed +in a thousand and one different forms, customs, and associations, judges +us for those desires and dispositions that may result in action in the +future. Responsibility as a phenomenon of social psychology is obvious, +educative, inescapable, and admirable. Responsibility as a phenomenon of +individual psychology, whether from the Determinist or Indeterminist +point of view, is positively meaningless. + +Taking, then, responsibility as a fact of social life, with its true +significance of accountability, let us see its meaning on deterministic +lines. For the sake of clearness we will first take legal responsibility +as illustrating the matter. In law a man is accounted guilty provided he +knows the law he is breaking, and also that he is capable of +appreciating the consequences of his actions. A further consideration of +no mean importance is that the consequences attending the infringement +of the law are assumed to be sufficiently serious to counterbalance the +inducements to break the regulation. And as all citizens are assumed to +know the law, we may confine our attention to the last two aspects. +What, then, is meant by ability to appreciate consequences? There can be +no other meaning than the capacity to create an ideal presentment of the +penalties attaching to certain actions. Every promise of reward or +threat of punishment assumes this, and assumes also that provided the +ideal presentment is strong enough, certain general results will follow. +It is on this principle alone that punishments are proportioned to +offences, and that certain revisions of penalties take place from time +to time. Negatively the same thing is shown by the fact that young +children, idiots, and lunatics are not legally held responsible for +their actions. The ground here is that the power to represent ideally +the full consequences of actions is absent, or operates in an abnormal +manner. Moreover, the whole line of proof to establish insanity in a +court of law is that a person is not amenable to certain desires and +impulses in the same manner as are normally constituted people. + +Substantially the same thing is seen if we take the fact of +responsibility in non-legal matters. A very young child, incapable of +ideally representing consequences, is not considered a responsible +being. An older child has a limited responsibility in certain simple +matters. As it grows older, and growth brings with it the power of more +fully appreciating the consequence of actions, its responsibility +increases in the home, in the school, in business, social, religious, +and political circles it is held accountable for its conduct, in +proportion as the power of estimating the consequences of actions is +assumed. In other words, we assume not that there is at any stage an +autonomous or self-directing "will" in operation, but that a particular +quality of motive will operate at certain stages of mental development, +and the whole of the educative process, in the home, the school, and in +society, aims at making these motives effective. That is, the whole fact +of responsibility assumes as a datum the very condition that the +Indeterminist regards as destroying responsibility altogether. He argues +that if action is the expression of character, responsibility is a +farce. But it is precisely because action is the expression of character +that responsibility exists. When the law, or when society, calls a man +to account for something he has done, it does not deny that had he +possessed a different character he would have acted differently. It does +not assert that at the time of action he could have helped doing what he +did. Both may be admitted. What it does say is that having a character +of such and such a kind certain things are bound to follow. But +inasmuch as that character may be modified by social opinion or social +coercion, inasmuch as it will respond to certain influences brought to +bear upon it, it is a responsible character, and so may be held +accountable for its actions. + +There is, therefore, nothing incompatible between Determinism and +Responsibility. The incompatibility lies between Indeterminism and +Responsibility. What meaning can we attach to it, on what ground can we +call a person to account, if our calling him to account is not one of +the considerations that will affect his conduct? Grant that a +consciousness of responsibility decides how a person shall act, and the +principle of Determinism is admitted. Deny that a consciousness of +responsibility determines action, and the phrase loses all meaning and +value. The difficulty arises, as has been said, by ignoring the fact +that responsibility is of social origin, and in looking for an +explanation in individual psychology. It would, of course, be absurd to +make man responsible for being what he is, but so long as he is amenable +to the pressure of normal social forces he is responsible or accountable +for what he may be. Whatever his character be, so long as it has the +capacity of being affected by social pressure, it is a responsible +character. And this is the sole condition that makes responsibility +intelligible. + +Having said this, it is not difficult to see the place of punishment and +reward, or praise and blame, in the Determinist scheme of things. +Another word than punishment might be selected, and one that would be +without its unpleasant associations, but on the whole it is advisable +perhaps to retain the word in order to see the nature of the problem +clearly. Of course, punishment in the sense of the infliction of pain +merely because certain actions have been committed, no Determinist would +countenance. So far as punishment is inflicted in this spirit of sheer +retaliation it serves only to gratify feelings of malevolence. A society +that punishes merely to gratify resentment is only showing that it can +be as brutal collectively as individuals can be singly. And if +punishment begins and ends with reference to the past, then it is +certainly revolting to inflict pain upon a person because he has done +what education and organization impelled him to do. So far one can agree +with Professor Sidgwick that when a man's conduct is "compared with a +code, to the violation of which punishments are attached, the question +whether he really could obey the rule by which he is judged is obvious +and inevitable." But when he goes on to reply "If he could not, it seems +contrary to our sense of justice to punish him," the reply is, Not if +the code is one that normal human nature can obey, and the individual +one who can be modified in a required direction in both his own interest +and the interest of others. For if our punishment is prospective instead +of retrospective, or at least retrospective only so far as to enable us +to understand the character of the individual with whom we are dealing, +and using punishment as one of the means of securing a desirable +modification of character, then punishment is merged in correction, and +receives a complete justification upon Deterministic lines. + +The problem is comparatively simple. Actions being decided by motives, +the problem with a socially defective character is how to secure the +prevalence of desires that will issue in desirable conduct. A man +steals; the problem then is, How can we so modify the character of which +stealing is the expression, so that we may weaken the desire to steal +and strengthen feelings that will secure honesty of action? On the lower +plane society resorts to threats of pains and penalties, so that when +the desire to steal arises again, the knowledge that certain measures +will be taken against the offender will arrest this desire. This is one +of the principal grounds on which a measure like the First Offenders Act +is based. On a higher plane the approval and respect of society serve to +awaken a positive liking for honesty and the formation of desirable +mental habits. Praise and blame rest upon a precisely similar basis. Man +being the socialized animal he is, the approbation and disapprobation of +his fellows must always exert considerable influence on his conduct. The +memory of censure passed or of praise bestowed acts as one of the many +influences that will determine conduct when the critical moment for +action arrives. Man does not always consciously put the question of what +his social circle will think of his actions, but this feeling rests upon +a deeper and more secure basis than that of consciousness. It has been, +so to speak, worked into his nature by all the generations of social +life that have preceded his existence, and to escape it means to put +off all that is distinctly human in his character. Every time we praise +or blame an action we are helping to mould character, for both will +serve as guides in the future. And it is just because at the moment of +action a person "could not help doing" what he did that there is any +reasonable justification for either approval or censure. Social approval +and disapproval become an important portion of the environment to which +the human being must perforce adapt himself. + +What use could there be in punishing or blaming a man if his actions are +determined, not by realizable motives, but by a mysterious will that in +spite of our endeavours remains uninfluenced? If neither the promise nor +the recollection of punishment creates feelings that will determine +conduct, then one might as well whip the wind. Its only purpose is to +gratify our own feelings of anger or malevolence. It is equally futile +to look for the cause of wrong-doing in education, organization, or +environment. For in proportion as we recognize any or all of these +factors as determining conduct we are deserting the Indeterminist +position, and relinquishing the "freedom" of the will. If Indeterminism +be true we are forced to believe that although as a consequence of +ill-conduct evil feelings may arise with greater frequency, yet they +must be wholly ineffective as influencing action. It cannot even be +argued that certain motives offer stronger attraction than others to the +will, for this in itself would be a form of determinism. There is no +middle course. Either the "will" remains absolutely uninfluenced by +threat of punishment or desire for praise, serenely indifferent to the +conflict of desires, and proof against the influence of education, or it +forms a part of the causative sequence and the truth of Determinism is +admitted. You cannot at the same time hold that man does not act in +accordance with the strongest motive, and decide that the "will" +maintains its freedom by deciding which motive shall be the +strongest--its own determination not being the product of previous +training. One need, indeed, only state the Indeterminist position +plainly to see its inherent absurdity. + +If ever in any case the argument _ad absurdum_ was applicable it is +surely here. It may safely be said that the larger part of the life of +each of us is passed in anticipating the future in the light of +experience. But if "Free-Will" be a fact, on what ground can we forecast +the future. If motives do not determine conduct, any prophecy of what +certain people may do in a given situation is futile. The will being +indetermined, what they have done in the past is no guide as to what +they will do in the future. If motives did not decide then they will not +decide now. Whether we read backward or forward makes no difference. We +have no right to say that the actions of certain statesmen prove them to +have been animated by the desire for wealth or power. That would imply +Determinism. We cannot say that because a murder has been committed a +certain person who bore the deceased ill-will is rightly suspected. This +is assuming that conduct is determined by motives. If we see a person +jump into the river, we have no right to argue that depressed health, +or financial worry, or impending social disgrace, has caused him to +commit suicide. The mother may as easily murder her child as nurse it. +The workman may labour as well for a bare pittance as for a comfortable +wage. A man outside a house in the early hours of the morning, armed +with a dark lantern and a jemmy, may have no desire to commit a +burglary. A person with a game bag and a gun furnishes no reliable data +for believing that he intends to shoot something. In all of these cases, +and in hundreds of others, if "free-will" be a fact we have no right to +argue from actions to motives, or infer motives from actions. Motives do +not rule, and we are witnessing the uncaused and unaccountable vagaries +of an autonomous will. + +It is sometimes said that no matter how convinced a Determinist one may +be, one always acts as though the will were free. This, so far from +being true, is the reverse of what really happens. In all the affairs of +life people of all shades of opinion concerning Determinism really act +as though "Free-Will" had no existence. It would, indeed, be strange +were it otherwise. Facts are more insistent than theories, and in the +last resort it is the nature of things which determines the course of +our actions. Nature, while permitting considerable latitude in matters +of theory or opinion, allows comparatively little play in matters of +conduct. And it may be asserted that a society which failed to +acknowledge in its conduct the principle of Determinism would stand but +small chance of survival. As a matter of fact, when it comes to +practical work the theory of "Free-Will" is ignored and the theory of +Determinism acted upon. The unfortunate thing is that the maintenance of +"Free-Will" in the sphere of opinion serves to check the wholesome +application of the opposite principle. Theory is used to check action +instead of serving its proper function as a guide to conduct. + +Still, it is instructive to note to what extent in the sphere of +practice the principle of Determinism is admitted. In dealing with the +drink question, for instance, temperance reformers argue that a +diminution in the number of public-houses, and the creation of +opportunities for healthy methods of enjoyment, will diminish temptation +and weaken the desire for alcoholic stimulants. In the training of +children stress is rightly laid upon the importance of the right kind of +associates, the power of education, and of healthy physical +surroundings. With adults, the beneficial influences of fresh air, good +food, well-built houses, open spaces, and healthy conditions of labour +have become common-places of sociology. In every rational biography +attention is paid to the formative influences of parents, friends, and +general environment. Medical men seek the cause of frames of mind in +nervous structure, and predisposition to physical, mental, and moral +disease in heredity. Statisticians point to absolute uniformity of +general human action under certain social conditions. Moralists point to +the power of ideals on people's minds. Religious teachers emphasize the +power of certain teachings in reducing particular habits. In all these +cases no allowance whatever is made for the operation of an undetermined +will. The motive theory of action may not be consciously in the minds +of all, but it is everywhere and at all times implied in practice. + +In strict truth, we cannot undertake a single affair in life without +making the assumption that people will act in accordance with certain +motives, and that these in turn will be the outcome of specific desires. +If I journey from here to Paris I unconsciously assume that certain +forces--the desire to retain a situation, to earn a living, to satisfy a +sense of duty--will cause all the officials connected with boat and +train service to carry out their duties in a given manner. If I appeal +for the protection of the police I am again counting upon certain +motives influencing the official mind in a particular manner. All +commercial transactions rest upon the same unconscious assumption. A +merchant who places an order with a firm in Russia, America, or Japan, +or who sends goods abroad, counts with absolute confidence upon certain +desires and mental states so influencing a number of people with whom he +has no direct connection, that they will co-operate in landing the goods +at the point desired. Or if the goods are not transmitted as desired, it +is not because the principle upon which he relied is invalid, but +because other desires have operated in a more powerful manner. A general +commanding an army acts on precisely the same principle. The ideal of +duty, of the honour of the regiment, the desire for distinction, are all +counted upon as being powerful enough to serve as motives that will +cause men to join in battle, storm a risky position, or take part in a +forlorn hope. History is read upon the same principle. The statement +that Nero was cruel, that Henry the Eighth was of an amatory nature, +that Charles I. was tyrannical, or that Louis the Fifteenth was +licentious, could not be made unless we argue that their actions imply +the existence of certain motives. That the motive theory of the will is +true is admitted in practice by all. The Indeterminist admits it even in +his appeal to "Liberty." He is counting upon the desire for freedom +(sociologically) as being strong enough to lead people to reject a +theory which denies its applicability to morals. + +Human nature becomes a chaos if Determinism is denied. Neither a science +of human conduct nor of history is possible in its absence; for both +assume a fundamental identity of human nature beneath all the +comparatively superficial distinctions of colour, creed, or national +divisions. The determination of the influence of climate, food, +inter-tribal or international relations, of the power of ideals--moral, +religious, military, national, etc.--are all so many exercises in the +philosophy of Determinism. In none of these directions do we make the +least allowance for the operation of an uncaused "will." We say with +absolute confidence that given a people with a military environment, and +either its discomforts produce an anti-militarist feeling, or its +glamour evokes a strong militarist feeling. So with all other +consideration that comes before us. And as Determinism enables us to +read and understand history and life, so it also provides a basis upon +which we can work for reform. In the belief that certain influences will +produce, in the main, a particular result, we can lay our plans and +work with every prospect of ultimate success. Instead of our best +endeavours being left at the mercy of an undetermined "will," they take +their place as part of the determining influences that are moulding +human nature. Every action becomes a portion of the environment with +which each has to deal. More, it becomes a portion of the agent's own +environment, a part of that ideal world in which we all more or less +live. And the heightened consciousness that every action leaves a +certain residuum for either good or ill, supplies in itself one of the +strongest incentives for the exercise of self-control and furnishes an +unshakable basis for self-development. + + + + +VII. + +DETERMINISM AND CHARACTER. + + +In spite of what has been said, it may be that a protest will still be +raised by some on behalf of character. A man's character, it will be +argued, is an alienable personal possession. What he does belongs to him +in a sense that is peculiar to his personality. In many important +instances his actions bear the stamp of individuality in so plain a +manner that while we cannot predict what he will do, once it is done we +recognize by the peculiar nature of the action that it must have been +done by him and by none other. In painting, in music, in literature, and +in many other walks of life, we are able to infer authorship by the +personality stamped upon the production. Moreover, nothing that we can +do or say will ever destroy the conviction that my actions are _mine_. +They proceed from _me_; they are the expressions of _my_ character; it +is this feeling that induces me to plead guilty to the charge of +responsibility, and this conviction remains after all argument has been +urged. But, it is further asked, how can this be aught but an illusion +if I am not the real and determining cause of my conduct? If I and my +actions are the products of a converging series of calculable or +indetermined forces, are we not compelled to dismiss this conviction as +pure myth? Must I not conclude that I am no more the determining cause +of my conduct than a stone determines whether it shall fall to the +ground or not? And is not the cultivation of character, therefore, an +absurd futility? + +Now although the Determinist will dissent from the conclusions of those +who argue in this way, with a great deal of the argument he would agree; +more than that, he would enforce the same line of reasoning as a +legitimate inference from his own position. And he might also submit +that it is only by an acceptance of the deterministic position that such +reasoning can receive full justification. + +What do we mean by character? Suppose we reply with T. H. Green by +defining character as the way in which a man seeks self-satisfaction.[7] +We are next faced with the problem of accounting for the different ways +in which self-satisfaction is sought. One man is a drunkard and another +temperate, one is benevolent and another grasping, one is cruel and +another kind; there are endless diversities of human conduct, and all +come within the scope of Green's definition of character. We have to +look farther and deeper. A satisfactory answer clearly cannot be found +in the assumption that each person's actions proceed from an unfettered, +autonomous will. The reason for the choice would still have to be +discovered. Nor will it do to attribute the difference of choice to +different environmental influences in which the "self" is placed. This +would indeed be reducing the man to the level of a machine, or to a +lower level still. And the same environmental influences do _not_ +produce identical results. This is one of the commonest facts of daily +experience. Stimulus from the environment is the essential condition of +action, but the precise nature of the action elicited is an affair of +the organism. If I am courageous by nature I shall stay and face a +threatened danger. If I am cowardly I shall run away. Thus, while +circumstances are the cause of my acting, how I shall act is in turn +caused by my character, the net result being due to their interaction. +This seems so obvious that it may well be accepted as a datum common to +both parties in the dispute. + + [7] _Works_, vol. ii. p. 142. + +We may, then, freely grant the Indeterminist--what he foolishly assumes +is inconsistent with the Deterministic position--that environment may be +modified by character, that a man is not the creature of circumstances, +if we restrict that word to external circumstances, as is so often done. +A man, we will say, allowing for the influence of external +circumstances, acts according to his character. The question then +becomes, "What is his character? How does he acquire it?[8] And whence +the varieties of character?" To these queries the only intelligible +reply is that a man's character represents his psychic heritage, as his +body represents his physical heritage, both of them being subject to +development and modification by post-natal influences. Each one thus +brings a different psychic force, or a different character, to bear upon +the world around him. He is thus the author of his acts, not in the +unintelligible sense of absolutely originating the sequence that +proceeds from his actions, but in the rational sense of being that point +in the sequence that is represented by his personality. And his actions +bear the stamp of his personality because had his antecedents been +different his actions would have varied accordingly. Each is properly +judged in terms of character, because it is the character which +determines the form taken by the reaction of the organism on the +environment. + + [8] Of course, the man and his character are not + two distinct things. The character is the man. But + it would involve needless circumlocution to insist + on superfine distinctions, and it may even help to + a comprehension of the argument to keep to + familiar forms of speech. + +We may go even further than this and say that it is only actions which +proceed from character that are properly the subject of moral judgment. +Let us take a concrete illustration of this. A man distributes a large +sum of money among the inhabitants of a town, some of it in the form of +personal gifts among its needy inhabitants, the rest in endowing various +institutions connected with its social and municipal life. Twelve months +later he comes forward as candidate in a parliamentary election. The +question of his donations at once comes up for judgment, and in defence +he may plead that he was only invited to contest the seat after the +money was given. How shall we determine what his motives were? Obviously +by an appeal to his character. If he were well known as a wealthy person +of recognized benevolent disposition, it would be argued that while his +candidature would inevitably reap benefit from his donations it was +highly probable that in giving the money he was only acting as one would +expect him to act. If, on the other hand, he was well known as a person +of a mean and grasping disposition, it would be concluded that the +donation was an attempt to bribe the electorate, his giving the money so +long before being an intelligent anticipation of events. In either case +we should be appealing to character, and judging the man by what of his +character was known. Numerous instances of a like kind might be given, +but in every case it would be found that we infer from an action a +particular kind of motive, and that our judgment of the motive is +determined by the character of the individual. This is so far the case +that we are apt to mistrust our own judgment when we find a benevolent +person doing what looks like a mean action, or a brave person committing +what looks like an act of cowardice. While action is thus--so far as it +is intentional--always the registration of motive, and motive the +expression of a preponderating desire, the desire, whether it be +licentious or chaste, noble or ignoble, is the outcome of character. + +Determinism thus finds a fit and proper place for character in its +philosophy of things. It does not say that the fact or the consideration +of character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it says it is +all-important. And in saying this it challenges the position of the +Indeterminist by the implication that it is only on lines of Determinism +that character is important or that it can be profitably cultivated. For +consider what is meant by saying that conduct implies and proceeds from +character. It clearly implies that a man acts in this or that manner +because he has been in the habit of acting in this or that manner. We do +not gather grapes from thistles, and we do not experience noble actions +from a depraved character. The actions of each are determined by the +character of each, and character is in turn the outcome of psychic +inheritance, plus the effects of the interaction of organism and +environment from the moment of birth onward. Personal characteristics, +honesty, courage, truthfulness, loyalty, thus imply strictly determined +qualities. They are qualities determined by the nature of the organism. +They could not be expressed unless the surrounding circumstances were +favourable to their expression; but neither could they be manifested +unless the character was of a particular order. Conduct is, in fact, +always a product of the two things. + +Let us also note that it is this determination of qualities that is +implied when we speak of a good or a bad, a strong or a weak character. +We should not call a man a good character who to-day fed a starving +child, and to-morrow kicked it from his doorstep. We should describe him +as, at best, a person of an exceedingly variable disposition who +satisfied the caprice of the moment irrespective of the feelings and +needs of others. We should not call a person strong who withstood a +temptation one hour and yielded to it the next. He would be described as +weak, and lacking the compelling force of a stable disposition. It is +also true that the moralization of character is the more complete as the +determined nature of impulses is the more evident. Most people would not +only resent the imputation of having committed a mean action, they would +also resent the likelihood of their committing one. And in common +speech, and in fact, the highest tribute we can pay a man is to say +that a certain kind of action is beneath him. We say that we know A +would not have committed a theft, but we are quite willing to believe it +of B. In each case we make no allowance for the operation of an +undetermined will; such doubts as we have being connected with our +inability to completely analyze the character in question. But our +prognostications are strictly based upon our knowledge of character and +upon the conviction that given a certain character and the operation of +particular motives, specific action follows with mathematical certainty. + +And this, as has previously been pointed out, gives the only reliable +basis for the cultivation of character. The whole aim of education, +whether it be that received in the home, in the school, or the larger +and more protracted education of social life, has the aim and purpose of +securing the spontaneous response of a particular action to a particular +stimulus, or on the negative side that certain circumstances shall not +arouse desires of a socially unwelcome character. The phrase +"Patriotism" thus serves to arouse a group of feelings that cluster +round the state and social life. "Home" awakens its own groups of +domestic and parental feelings. "Duty," again, covers a wider sphere, +but involves the same process. By instruction and by training, certain +conditions, circumstances, words, or associations are made to call up +trains of connected feelings which, culminating in a desire, +imperatively demand conduct along a given line. The more complete the +education, the stronger the desire; the stronger the desire, the more +certain the action. The more defective the education the less the +certainty with which we can count upon specific conduct. The man who +acts to-day in one way and to-morrow in another way is not a man of +strong desires, so much as he is a man whose desires are undisciplined. +The man who acts with uniform certainty is not a man of weak desire, but +one whose desires run with strength and swiftness in a uniform +direction. And it is a curious feature of indeterministic psychology +that it should take as clear evidence of the subordination of desire to +"will" the man whose desire is so strong as to preclude hesitation +between it and action. + +The whole of education, the whole of the discipline of life, is thus +based upon the determination of conduct by circumstances and character. +If the principle of cause and effect does not fully apply to conduct, +all our training is so much waste of time. But it is because we cannot +really think of the past not influencing the present, once we bring the +two into relation, that we, Determinist and Indeterminist alike, proceed +with our deterministic methods of training, and in this instance at +least wisdom is justified of her children. + +Finally, if the above be granted, can we longer attach meaning to the +expression that man forms his own character? Well, if it means that a +man has any share in his psychic endowments, or that they being what +they are at any given time he could at that time act differently from +the way in which he does act, the expression is meaningless. It is +absolute nonsense. But in another sense it does convey an important +truth. We must, however, always bear in mind that in speaking of a +man's character we are not dealing with two things, but with one thing. +The character is the man, the man is the character. Or to be quite +accurate, body and mind, physical and psychical qualities together, form +the man, and any separation of these is for purposes of analysis and +study only. If we say, then, that a man is master of his own character, +or that a man may mould his own character, we do not imply the existence +of an independent entity moulding or mastering something else. We are +saying no more than that every experience carries its resultant into the +sum of character. Action generates habit, and habit means a more or less +permanent modification of character. What a man is, is the outcome of +what he has been, and a perception of this truth no more conflicts with +the principles of Determinism as above explained, than a stone being +intercepted in its fall down the side of a hill by lodging against a +tree is an infraction of the law of gravitation. In this sense, using +figurative language, a man may be said to be master of himself. What he +does proceeds from himself; it is the expression of his character, and +his doing cuts deeper the grooves of habit, and so makes more certain +the performance of similar actions in the future. It is the fact of the +motive springing from character which determines the act that makes the +man its author. And the knowledge of this supplies him with, not alone +the most powerful incentive towards the determination of his own +character, but, what is equally important, the only method whereby to +fashion the character of others. + + + + +VIII. + +A PROBLEM IN DETERMINISM. + + +If human feeling followed logical conviction the discussion of +Determinism might, so far as the present writer is concerned, be +considered as finished. Ultimately this doubtless occurs; but in the +interim one has to reckon with the play of feeling, fashioned by +long-standing conviction, upon convictions that are of recent origin. +Thus it happens that many who realise the logical force of arguments +similar to those hitherto advanced, find themselves in a state of +fearfulness concerning the ultimate effect on human life of a convinced +Determinism. The conflict between feeling and conviction that exists in +their own minds they naturally ascribe to others, and endow it with a +permanency which mature consideration might show to be unwarranted. It +would indeed be strange and lamentable if the divorce between feeling +and conviction--to adopt a popular classification--was not simply +incidental to change, but was also an inexpugnable part of fundamental +aspects of human life. + +Mr. A. J. Balfour has indeed gone so far as to suggest,[9] as a theory +to meet this phenomenon, that the immediate consciousness of our +actions being determined would be so paralyzing to action, that Nature +has by "a process of selective slaughter" made a consciousness of this +character a practical impossibility. But it would seem that the fact of +a consciousness of determination developing at all affords strong +presumptions in favour of the belief that no such selective slaughter is +really necessary to the maintenance of vital social relations. Mr. +Balfour's argument might have some weight against Fatalism, which says +that what is to be will be in despite of all that may be done to prevent +its occurrence; but we are on different ground with a theory which makes +what _I_ do part of the sequence that issues in a particular result. + + [9] _International Journal of Ethics_, vol. iv. + pp. 421-422. + +The problem is put very plainly in the following two quotations. The +first is from a private source, written by one who fears the +consequences of Determinism on conduct. The writer says:-- + + "In a moral crisis, and with the consciousness of a strong + tendency in the direction of what is felt to be wrong, is there + no danger of this desire gaining further strength and becoming + the predominant feeling by accepting Determinism, causing a + weakened sense of responsibility, besides providing a convenient + excuse for giving way to the lower instead of the higher? Thus + in a question of alternatives is it not conceivable that by + dwelling on this thought, the agent is resisting possibilities + which might otherwise have a different effect had Determinism no + advocacy and with a different competitive factor to oppose? + This, it seems to me, is what the Indeterminist fears, and I + think it must be admitted not without some reason." + +The second comes from Mr. F. W. Headley's work, _Life and Evolution_. +Mr. Headley, after discussing the evolution of mind, and after admitting +the impregnable nature of the determinist position, says that +notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary we cannot help cherishing +the belief that we are in some sense "free," and adds:-- + + "For practical purposes what is wanted is not free-will but a + working belief in it. When the time for decision and for action + comes, a man must feel that he is free to choose or he is lost. + And this working belief in free-will, even though the thing + itself be proved to be a phantom and an illusion, is the + inalienable property of every healthy man." + +Both these criticisms might be met by the method of analysing the use +made of certain leading words. For example, the Determinist would quite +agree that for conduct to be fruitful a man must feel that he is free to +choose. But unless his freedom consists in liberty to obey the dictates +of his real nature, the term is without significance. The fact of +choice, as has been pointed out, is common ground for both Determinist +and Indeterminist. The real question is whether the choice itself is +determined or not. What a man needs to feel is that his choice is +decisive, and that it is based upon an impartial review of the +alternatives as they appear to him. Determinism makes full allowance for +this; it is Indeterminism which in denying the application of causality +to the will substantially asserts that the whole training of a lifetime +may be counteracted by the decision of an uncaused will, and so renders +the whole process unintelligible. And as to Determinism causing a +weakened sense of responsibility, surely one may fairly argue that the +consciousness of the cumulative force of practice may well serve to warn +us against yielding to a vicious propensity, and so strengthen the +feeling of resistance to it. There could hardly be conceived a stronger +incentive to right action, or to struggle against unwholesome desires, +than this conviction. Moreover, the practical testimony of those who are +convinced Determinists is all in this direction. The fears are expressed +by those whose advocacy of Determinism is at best of but a lukewarm +description. + +But in order that the full weight of the difficulty may be realized let +us put the matter in a still more forcible form. Determinism, it is to +be remembered, is an attempt to apply to mind and morals that principle +of causation which is of universal application in the physical world, +and where it has proved itself so fruitful and suggestive. On this +principle all that is flows from all that has been in such a way that, +given a complete knowledge of the capacities of all the forces in +operation at any one time, the world a century hence could be predicted +with mathematical accuracy. So likewise with human nature. Human conduct +being due to the interaction of organism with environment, our +inability to say what a person will do under given circumstances is no +more than an expression of our ignorance of the quantitative and +qualitative value of the forces operating. The possibilities of action +are co-extensive with the actualities of ignorance. There is no break in +the working of causation, no matter what the sphere of existence with +which we happen to be dealing. + +It is at this point that Determinism lands one in what is apparently an +ethical _cul-de-sac_. If all that is, is the necessary result of all +that has been, if nothing different from what does occur could occur, +what is the meaning of the sense of power over circumstances that we +possess? And why urge people to make an effort in this or that direction +if everything, including the effort or its absence, is determined? I may +flatter myself with the notion that things are better because of some +action of mine. But beyond the mere fact that my action is part of the +stream of causation, all else is a trick of the imagination. My conduct +is, all the time, the result of the co-operation of past conditions with +present circumstances. To say that praise or blame of other people's +conduct, or approval or disapproval of my own conduct, is itself a +determinative force, hardly meets the point. For these, too, are part of +the determined order. + +It might be urged that the knowledge that by exciting certain feelings +others are proportionately weakened operates in the direction of +improvement. Quite so; and as a mere description of what occurs the +statement is correct. But to the Determinist there is no "I" that +determines which feeling or cluster of feelings shall predominate. "I" +am the expression of the succession and co-ordination of mental states; +we are still within a closed circle of causation. Whether I am good or +bad, wise or unwise, I shall be what I must be, and nothing else; do as +I must do, and no more. + +This is, I think, putting the Indeterminists' case as strongly as it can +be put. How is the Determinist to meet the attack? A common retort is +that all this being granted things remain as they were. If the criminal +action is determined so is that of the judge, and so no harm is done. We +shall go on praising or blaming, punishing or rewarding, doing or not +doing, exactly as before, simply because we cannot do otherwise. This, +however, while effective as a mere retort, is not very satisfactory as +an answer. For it neither explains the sense of power people feel they +possess, nor does it meet the criticism raised. On the one hand there is +the fact that character does undergo modification, and the conviction +that _my_ effort does play a part in securing that modification. And +with this there goes the feeling--with some--that if everything, mental +states and dispositions included, is part of an unbroken and unbreakable +order, why delude ourselves with the notion of personal power? Why not +let things drift? And on the other hand there is the conviction that +scientific Determinism holds the field. The state of mind is there, and +it is fairly expressed in the two quotations already given; particularly +in Mr. Headley's statement that we ought to act as though Free-Will were +a fact, even though we know it to be otherwise. The difficulty is +there, and one must admit that it is not always fairly faced by writers +on Determinism. An appeal is made to man's moral sense, and this, while +legitimate enough in some connections, is quite irrelevant in this. Or +it is said that a knowledge of the causational nature of morals should +place people on their guard against encouraging harmful states of mind. +This is also good counsel, but it clearly does not touch the point that, +whether I encourage harmful or beneficial states of mind, it is all part +of the determined order of things. + +As an example of what has been said we may take a passage from John +Stuart Mill. In his criticism of Sir William Hamilton, Mill remarks:-- + + "The true doctrine of the causation of human actions maintains + ... that not only our conduct, but our character, is, in part, + amenable to our will; that we can by employing the proper means, + improve our character; and that if our character is such that + while it remains what it is, it necessitates us to do wrong, it + will be just to apply motives which will necessitate us to + strive for its improvement, and so emancipate ourselves from the + other necessity; in other words, we are under a moral obligation + to seek the improvement of our moral character." + +Admirable as is this passage it is clearly no reply to the criticism +that whether we seek moral improvement or not, either course is as much +necessitated as is the character that needs improving. To give a real +relevance to this passage we should have to assume the existence of an +ego outside the stream of causation deciding at what precise point it +should exert a determining influence. That so clear a thinker as Mill +should have overlooked this gives point to what has been said as to +writers on Determinism having failed to squarely face the issue. + +A more valid reply to Mr. Headley's position would be that so long as we +believe a theory to be sound there is no real gain in acting as though +we were convinced otherwise. Granting that an illusion may have its +uses, it can only be of service so long as we do not know it to be an +illusion. A mirage of cool trees and sparkling pools may inspire tired +travellers in a desert to renewed efforts of locomotion. But if they +_know_ it to be a mirage it only serves to discourage effort. And once +we believe in Determinism, our right course, and our only profitable +course, is to face all the issues as courageously as may be. Not that a +correct reading of Determinism leads to our sitting with folded hands +lacking the spirit to strive for better things. + +It may be that certain people so read Determinism, but one cannot +reasonably hold a theory responsible for every misreading of it that +exists. Theologians in particular would be in a very uncomfortable +position if this rule were adopted. A theory is responsible for such +conclusions or consequences as are logically deducible therefrom, but no +more. And what we are now concerned with is, first, will Determinism, +properly understood, really have the effect feared; and, second, is it +possible for Determinism to account adequately for the belief that it is +possible to modify other people's character, and in so doing modify our +own? In Mill's words, can we exchange the necessity to do wrong for the +necessity to do right? I believe that a satisfactory reply can be given +to both questions. + +In the first place we have to get rid of the overpowering influence of +an atomistic psychology. A very little study of works on +psychology--particularly of the more orthodox schools--is enough to show +that the social medium as a factor determining man's mental nature has +been either ignored, or given a quite subordinate position. Because in +studying the mental qualities of man we are necessarily dealing with an +individual brain, it has been assumed that mental phenomena may be +explained with no more than a casual reference to anything beyond the +individual organism. This assumption may be sound so long as we are +dealing with mind as the function of definitely localized organs, or if +we are merely describing mental phenomena. It is when we pass to the +contents of the mind, and study the significance of mental states, or +enquire how they came into existence, that we find the atomistic +psychology breaking down, and we find ourselves compelled to deal with +mind as a psycho-sociologic phenomenon, with its relation to the social +medium. Then we discover that it is man's social relationships, the +innumerable generations of reaction between individual organisms and the +social medium, which supply the key to problems that are otherwise +insoluble. + +It has already been pointed out that the whole significance of morality +is social. If we restrict ourselves to the individual no adequate +explanation can be given of such qualities as sympathy, honesty, +truthfulness, chastity, kindness, etc. Separate it in thought from the +social medium and morality becomes meaningless. Properly studied, +psychology yields much the same result. When we get beyond the +apprehension of such fundamental qualities as time and space, heat and +cold, colour and sound, the contour of man's mind, so to speak, is a +social product. His feelings and impulses imply a social medium as +surely as does morality. From this point of view the phrase "Social +sense" is no mere figure of speech; it is the expression of a pregnant +truth, the statement of something as real as any scientific law with +which we are acquainted. + +For the essence of a scientific law is the expression of a relation. The +law of gravitation, for instance, formulates the relations existing +between particles of matter. If there existed but one particle of matter +in the universe gravitation would be a meaningless term. Introduce a +second particle, and a relation is established between the two, and the +material for a scientific "law" created. In the same way a description +of individual human qualities is fundamentally a statement of the +relations existing between individuals living in groups; and any attempt +to understand human nature without considering these relations is as +certainly foredoomed to failure as would be the attempt to study a +particle of matter apart from the operation of all known forces. The +individual as he exists to-day is not something that exists apart from +the social forces; he is an expression, an epitome, of all their past +and present operations. The really essential thing in the study of human +nature is not so much the discrete individual A or B, but the relations +existing between A and B. It is these which make each end of the term +what it is--determines the individual's language, feelings, thoughts, +and character. + +It is along these lines that we have to look for an explanation of the +feeling that we can initiate a reform in character, and of a sense of +power in determining events. We start with a sense of power over the +course of events--which is interpreted as the equivalent of our ability +to initiate absolutely a change in our own character or in that of +others. But a little reflection convinces us--particularly if we call +ourselves Determinists--that this interpretation is quite erroneous. An +absolute beginning is no more conceivable in the mental or moral sphere +than it is in the physical world. The sum of all that is is the product +of all that has been, and in this, desires, feelings, dispositions are +included no less than physical properties. Now, curiously enough, the +conviction that an absolute change in character can be initiated exists +with much greater strength in regard to oneself than it does with regard +to others. It is easier to observe others than to analyze one's own +mental states, with the result that most people can more readily realize +that what others do is the product of their heredity and their +environment than they can realize it in their own case. Of course, +reflection shows that the same principle applies in both directions, but +we are here dealing with moods rather than with carefully reasoned out +convictions. And, generally speaking, while we _feel_ ourselves masters +of our own fate, we only suspect a similar strength in others. But each +one realizes, and with increasing vividness, the power he possesses in +modifying other people's character by a change of circumstances. We see +this illustrated by the increased emphasis placed upon the importance of +better sanitation, better housing, better conditions of labour, and of +an improved education. More from observing others than by studying +ourselves we see how modifiable a thing human nature is. We see how +character is modified by an alteration of the material environment, and +we also note our own individual function as a determinative influence in +effecting this modification. + +Now I quite fail to see that there is in this sense of power over +circumstances anything more than a recognition of our own efforts as +part of the determinative sequence. The added factor to the general +causative series is the consciousness of man himself. We are conscious, +more or less clearly, of our place in the sequence; we are able to +recognize and study our relations to past and present events, and our +probable relation to future ones. We see ourselves as so many efficient +causes of those social reactions that go to make up a science of +sociology, and it is this which gives us a sense of _power_ of +determining events. I say "power" because "freedom" is an altogether +different thing. The question of whether we are free to determine +events is, as I have shown, meaningless when applied to scientific +matters. But the question of whether or not we have the _power_ of +determining events may be answered in the affirmative--an answer not in +the least affected by the belief that this power is strictly conditioned +by past and present circumstances. The sense of power is real, and it +expresses a fact, even though the fact be an inevitable one. We are all +shapers of each other's character, moulders of each other's destiny. The +recognition of our power to act in this relation is not contrary to +Determinism, Determinism implies it. It is this which gives a real +meaning to the expression "social sense." For the social sense can have +no other meaning or value than as a recognition of the action of one +individual upon another, which, as in the case of a chemical compound, +results in the production of something that is not given by the mere sum +of individual qualities. + +So, too, do we get by this method a higher meaning to the word +"freedom." In an earlier part of this essay it was pointed out that +"freedom" was of social origin and application. Its essential meaning is +liberty to carry out the impulses of one's nature unrestricted by the +coercive action of one's fellows. But there is a higher and a more +positive meaning than this. Man is a social animal; his character is a +social product. The purely human qualities not only lose their value +when divorced from social relationships, it is these relationships that +provide the only medium for their activity. To say that a person is +free to express moral qualities in the absence of his fellows is +meaningless, since it is only in their presence that the manifestation +of them is possible. It is the intercourse of man with man that gives to +each whatever freedom he possesses. The restraints imposed upon each +member of a society in the interests of all are not a curtailing of +human freedom but the condition of its realization. To chafe against +them is, to use Kant's famous illustration, as unreasonable as a bird's +revolt against the opposing medium or atmosphere, in ignorance of the +fact that it is this opposition which makes flight possible. The only +genuine freedom that man can know and enjoy is that provided by social +life. Human freedom has its origin in social relationships, and to these +we are ultimately driven to discover its meaning and significance. + +So far, then, the sense of power in controlling events which each +possesses presents no insuperable difficulty to a theory of Determinism. +Only one other point remains on which to say a word, and that is whether +a conviction of the causative character of human action would lead to a +weakening of effort or to moral depression. Why should it have this +effect? It is curious that those who fear this result seem to have only +in mind the tendencies to wrongdoing. But if it operates at all it must +operate in all directions, and this would certainly strengthen good +resolutions as well as bad ones. And even though no more were to be +said, this would justify the assertion that merit and demerit would +remain unaffected, and that any harm done in one direction would be +compensated by good done in another. But another important +consideration is to be added. This is that while a consciousness of the +power of habit acts as a retarding influence on wrongdoing, it has an +accelerating influence in the reverse direction--that is, unless we +assume a character acting with the deliberate intention of cultivating +an evil disposition. Besides, the really vicious characters are not +usually given to reflecting upon the origin and nature of their desires, +and are therefore quite unaffected by any theory of volition; while +those who are given to such reflection are not usually of a vicious +disposition. We are really crediting the vicious with a degree of +intelligence and reflective power quite unwarranted by the facts of the +case. + +Finally, the criticism with which I have been dealing takes a too purely +intellectual view of conduct. It does not allow for the operation of +sympathy, or for the power of social reaction. And these are not only +real, they are of vital importance when we are dealing with human +nature. For man cannot, even if he would, remain purely passive. The +power of sympathy, the desire for social intercourse, the invincible +feeling that in some way he is vitally concerned with the well-being of +the society to which he belongs, these are always in operation, even +though their degree of intensity varies with different individuals. We +cannot possibly isolate man in considering conduct, because his whole +nature has been moulded by social intercourse, and craves continuously +for social approval. And it is such feelings that are powerful agents in +the immediate determination of conduct. The mental perception of the +causes and conditions of conduct are feeble by comparison and can only +operate with relative slowness. And in their operation they are all the +time checked and modified by the fundamental requirements of the social +structure. + + + + +IX. + +ENVIRONMENT. + + +In the course of the foregoing pages we have made frequent reference to +"environment," without the word being precisely described or defined. +The subject was of too great importance to be dismissed with a bald +definition, and to have dealt with it earlier at suitable length might +have diverted attention from the main argument. But so much turns on a +correct understanding of the word "environment" that a discussion of +Determinism would be incomplete that failed to fix its meaning with a +fair degree of accuracy. + +A very casual study of anti-deterministic literature is enough to show +that a great deal of the opposition to a scientific interpretation of +human conduct has its origin in a quite wrong conception of what the +determinist has in mind when he speaks of the part played by the +environment in the determination of conduct. Even writings ostensibly +deterministic in aim have not been free from blame in their use of the +word. Thus on the one hand we find it said that man is a creature of his +environment, and by "environment" we are to understand, by implication, +only the material forces, which are assumed to somehow drive man hither +and thither in much the same way as a tennis ball is driven this way or +that by the player. Against this there has been a natural and, let it +be said, a justifiable reaction. Expressed in this way it was felt that +man was not at the mercy of his surroundings. It was felt that, whatever +be its nature the organism does exert some influence over environmental +forces, and that it is not a merely passive register of their +operations. Neither of these views expresses the whole truth. It may be +that each expresses a truth, and it is still more probable, as is the +case with some terms already examined, that the confusion arises from a +mis-use of the language employed. + +To-day we are all familiar with the dictum that the maintenance of life +is a question of adaptation to environment--a truth that is equally +applicable to ideas and institutions. But the general truth admitted, +there is next required a consideration of its application to the +particular subject in hand, and in connection with our present topic +some attention must be paid both to the nature of the organism and of +the environment with which we are dealing. We then discover that not +alone are we dealing with an organism which is extremely plastic in its +nature, but that the environment may also vary within very wide limits. +On the one side, and in relation to man, we may be dealing with an +environment that is mainly physical in character, or it may be a +combination of physical conditions and biological forces, or, yet again, +it may be predominantly psychological in its nature. And, on the other +hand, the reaction of the organism on the environment may vary from +extreme feebleness to an almost overpowering determination. We may, +indeed, anticipate our argument by saying that one of the chief features +of human progress is the gradual subordination of the material +environment to the psychologic powers of man. + +If, now, we contrast the environment of an uncivilized with that of a +civilized people the difference is striking. The environment of an +uncivilized race will consist of the immediate physical surroundings, +the animals that are hunted for sport or killed for food, and a +comparatively meagre stock of customs and traditions. The environment of +a modern European will add to the physical surroundings an enormously +enlarged mass of social traditions and customs, an extensive literature, +contact with numerous other societies in various stages of culture, and +relations, more or less obscure, to a vast literary and social past. The +environment thus includes not merely the living, but also the dead. +Roman law, Greek philosophy, Eastern religious ideas, etc., all affect +the twentieth century European. It would require a lengthy essay to +enumerate all the influences that dominate the life of a particular +people of to-day, but enough has been said to illustrate the truth that +we must use the term "environment" so as to include _all_ that affects +the organism. And when this is done it soon becomes clear that by the +very growth of humanity the influence of the physical portion of the +environment becomes of relatively less importance with the progress of +the race--it is the subordination of the physical environment that is +the principal condition of the advance of civilization. + +But even when our conception of the meaning of environment has been thus +enlarged, we need to be on our guard against misconception from another +side. For the environment is only one factor in the problem; the +organism is another, and the relative importance of the two is a matter +of vital significance. We may still make the mistake of treating the +environment as active and the organism as passive. This would be a +similar mistake to that which is made when morality and religion are +treated as being no more than a reflection of economic conditions. The +action of the environment is given a place of first importance, while +the reaction of the organism on its environment is treated as a +negligible quantity. Historically this may be taken as a reaction +against the extreme spiritualistic view which, in upholding, a theory of +Free-Will made no allowance for the influence of the surroundings. An +extreme view in one direction usually sets up an extreme view by way of +opposition, and it must be confessed that in social philosophy the power +of the environment has often been made omnipotent. The medium has been +presented as active and the organism as passive. Different results occur +because the susceptibilities of organisms vary. Good or bad influences +affect individuals differently for much the same reason that soils +differ in their capacity for absorbing water. + +From the scientific and the philosophic side this conception derived a +certain adventitious strength. In the first place there was the now +generally discarded psychology which taught that the individual mind +was as a sheet of blank paper on which experience inscribed its lessons. +And in the second place the growth of biological science brought out +with great distinctness the influence of the environment on organic +life. It was very plain that the quality and quantity of the food +supply, the action of air and light, and other purely environmental +forces exercised an important influence. In the plant world it was seen +how much could be effected by a mere change of habitat. In the animal +world markings and structure seemed to have an obvious reference to the +nature of the environment. It, therefore, seemed nothing but a logical +inference to extend the same reasoning to man, and treat not only his +structure but his mental capacities as being the outcome of the same +kind of correspondence. + +But a too rigid application of biological principles lands one in error. +Society is more than a mere biological group, and no reasoning that +proceeds on the assumption that it is no more than that can avoid +confusion. And we certainly cannot square the facts with a theory which +treats the human organism as passive under the operation of +environmental forces. The conviction that man plays a positive part in +life is general, powerful, and, I think, justifiable. But if what _I_ do +is at any time the product of the environmental forces, physical and +other, there does not seem any room for _me_ as an active participant. +And the facts seem to demand that the individual should appear in some +capacity other than that of representing the total in an environmental +calculation. This would leave man with no other function than that of a +billiard ball pushed over a table by rival players. Given the force +exerted by the player, added to the size, weight, and position of the +ball, and the product of the combination gives us the correct answer. +But this kind of calculation will not do in the case of man. Here we +must allow, in addition to external influences, the positive action of +man on his surroundings. The conception of the organism as a plexus of +forces capable of this reaction is, indeed, vital to our conception of a +living being. Granted that in either case, that of the billiard ball and +that of the man, the result expresses the exact sum of all the forces +aiding at the time, there still remains an important distinction in the +two cases. Whether the billiard ball is struck by a professional player +or by an amateur, provided it be struck in a particular way the result +is in both cases identical. An identity of result is produced by an +identity of external conditions. + +With the human organism--with, in fact, any organism--this rule does not +apply. In any two cases the external factors may be identical, but the +results may be entirely different. A temptation that leaves one +unaffected may prove overpowering with another. Exactly the same +conditions of food, occupation, residence, and social position may +co-exist with entirely different effects on the organism. These +differences will be manifested from the earliest years and are a direct +consequence of the positive reaction of the organism on its environment, +a reaction that is more profound in the case of man than in that of any +other animal. + +To put the matter briefly. In the case of the billiard player the ball +remains a constant factor in a problem in which external conditions +represent a variant. In the case of man and his environment we are +dealing with two sets of factors, neither of which is constant and one +of which--the human one--varies enormously. And the reaction of man on +his environment becomes so great as to result in its practical +transformation. + +It may, of course, be urged that all this is covered and allowed for by +heredity. This may be so, but I am arguing against those who while +recognizing heredity fail to make adequate allowance for its operations. +Or it may be said that "environment" covers all forces, including +heredity. But in that case the distinction between organism and +environment is useless--in fact, it disappears. If, however, the +distinction between the two is retained, our theorizing must give full +appreciation to both. And in that case we must not fail to allow for the +transforming power of man over his surroundings. Nor must we overlook +another and a very vital fact, that in a large measure the environment +to which civilised mankind must adapt itself is largely a thing of human +creation. + +Viewed as merely external circumstances, the physical environment of man +remains constant. At any rate, such changes as do take place occur with +such slowness that for generations we may safely deal with them as +unchanged. The dissipation of the heat of the earth may be a fact, but +no one takes this into account in dealing with the probabilities of +human life during the next few generations. On the other hand, the +organism represents the cumulative, and consequently, ever-changing +power of human nature, and it is this that gives us the central fact of +human civilization. Whether acquired characters be inherited or not may +be still an open question, but in any case there is no denying that +capacity is heritable, and natural selection will move along the line of +favouring the survival of that capacity which is most serviceable. And +how does increasing capacity express itself? It can do so only in the +direction of giving man a greater ability to control and mould to his +own uses the material environment in which he is placed. Looking at the +course of social evolution, we see this increased and increasing +capacity expressed in art, industries, inventions, etc., all of which +mean in effect a transformation of the material surroundings and their +subjugation to the needs of man. These inventions, etc., not only +involve a transformation of the existing environment; they also mean the +creating of a new environment for succeeding generations. Each +mechanical invention, for example, is dependent upon the inventions and +discoveries that have preceded it, and to that extent it is dependent +upon the environment. But each invention places a new power in the hands +of man, and so enables him to still further modify and control his +surroundings. Human heredity is thus expressed in capacity as +represented by a definite organic structure. This is one factor in the +phenomenon of social evolution. The other factor is the environment in +which the organism is placed and to which it responds. The two factors, +organism and environment, remain constant throughout the animal world. +It is when we come to deal with human society specifically, that we find +a radical change in the nature of the environment to be considered. +Granted that some influence must always be exerted by the purely +material conditions, the fact remains that they become relatively less +powerful with the advance of civilization. The development of +agriculture, the invention of weapons and tools, the discovery of the +nature of natural forces, all help to give the developing human a +greater measure of control over both the physical and organic portion of +his environment, and to manifest a measure of independence concerning +them. + +But the supreme and peculiar feature of human society is the creation of +a new medium to which the individual must adapt himself. By means of +language and writing the knowledge and experience gained by one +generation are transmitted to its successors. The human intellect +elaborates definite theories concerning the universe of which it forms a +part. These theories and beliefs form and fashion institutions that are +transmitted from generation to generation. Language stereotypes +tradition and slowly creates a literature. In this way a new medium is +created which is psychological in character, and ultimately dominates +life. + +When a dog is about to rest it often tramps round and round the spot on +which it is to recline. Naturalists explain this as the survival of an +instinct which in the wild dog served the useful function of guarding it +against the presence of harmful creatures hidden in the grass. The +domesticated dog is here exhibiting an instinct that belongs to a past +condition of life. But man has few instincts--fewer perhaps than any +other animal. In their stead he has a greater plasticity of nature, and +a more educable intelligence. And it is in the exercise of this educable +organization that the psychological medium as expressed in art, +literature, and inventions, plays its part for good and ill. So soon as +he is able to understand, the individual finds himself surrounded by +ideas concerning home, the State, the monarchy, the Church, and a +thousand and one other things. He is brought into relation with a vast +literature, and also with the play of myriads of minds similar to his +own. Henceforth, it is this environment with which he has chiefly to +reckon in terms of either harmony or conflict. He can no more escape it +than he can dispense with the atmosphere. It is part and parcel of +himself. Without it he ceases to be himself; for if we cut away from man +all that this psychological heredity gives him he ceases to be man as we +understand the term. He becomes a mere animated object. + +Finally, we have to note that this psychological environment is +cumulative in character as being is all powerful in its influence. By +its own unceasing activity humanity is continually triumphing over the +difficulties of its material environment and adding to the complexity +and power of its mental one. Inevitably the environment thus becomes +more psychic in character and more powerful in its operations. We may +overcome the difficulties of climate, poor soil, geographical position, +etc., but it is impossible to ignore the great and growing pressure of +this past mental life of the race. It defies all attempts at material +coercion, and gradually transforms a material medium into what is +substantially a psychological one. Man cannot escape the domination of +his own mental life. Its unfettered exercise supplies the only freedom +he is capable of realising, as it constitutes the source of his +influence as a link in the causative process of determining his own +destiny and moulding that of his successors. + + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Transcriber's Note: + + +Minor punctuation errors have been corrected without note. Inconsistent +hyphenation has not been changed. In the plain-text version, decorative +italics have not been represented. + +The following corrections were made to the text: + +p. 17: contantly to constantly (constantly enlarging and more +comprehensive) + +p. 24: admiting to admitting (even while admitting) + +p. 24: which which to with which (with which it is used) + +p. 28 (Footnote 2): contraint to constraint (Freedom and constraint) + +p. 30 (Footnote 3): acton to action (all volitional action) + +p. 34: Maudesley to Maudsley (says Dr. Maudsley) + +p. 41: missing "from" added (shall be expelled from our) + +p. 58: occured to occurred (occurred in the past) + +p. 86: absurdem to absurdum (argument _ad absurdum_) + +p. 98: condiitons to conditions (certain conditions, circumstances) + +p. 107: Hamiliton to Hamilton (Sir William Hamilton) + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Determinism or Free-Will?, by Chapman Cohen + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DETERMINISM OR FREE-WILL? *** + +***** This file should be named 37358.txt or 37358.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/7/3/5/37358/ + +Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, S.D., and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/37358.zip b/37358.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8dea10 --- /dev/null +++ b/37358.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..feab752 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #37358 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37358) |