Micah Craypo
Philosophy 1000
Instructor: Holbrook
24 September, 2011
Determinism/ two sides of the Coin
B.F. Skinner’s definition for determinism is: asserting that, behavior is fully determined by environmental stimuli. William James defined determinism as: the belief that everything that happens must happen exactly the way it does. In completely different words, both of these definitions agree exactly that determinism would mean we have no free will in the choices we “think” were making. We don’t do life; life does us, in other words.
Skinner is notorious for turning positive and negative reinforcements into a provable science when engineering behavior. The “skinner box”, they called it, was a box where a rat was rewarded shocks or treats based on the desirable behavior, and it worked. A simple example of skinners view on determinism would be if I come up to you and push you, I’ve literally taken away your free will to be moved. According to Skinner, all natural laws and environmental stimuli act as these sorts of antecedent causes which determine our behavior, similar to the “push.”
It may never be proven that humans are more naturally designed to be “happy” or “sad”, positive and likeable traits over negative and unlikable ones. Now according to James- “In the absence of conclusive proof, we are free to decide which belief better suits our needs.” James simply suggests then, that we should pick the happy and positive route because it evidently comes with many more rewards in this life. So James converts this thinking to determinism. If determinism was a proven, actual and conclusive fact, then there would exist no ongoing debate among philosophers; however it is not conclusive or absolute at all. So the only absolute and conclusive fact in this matter of determinism is that there is no absolute and conclusive facts and proof, for, or against determinism. Proven that there is no absolute answer either way, we have the liberty to decide which view “works for us.”
And really this is exactly what both sides of the argument are doing anyways. Skinner’s side simply chooses to live a life believing that determinism is real, and William’s side lives a life believing that determinism is not. “Different strokes for different folks.” Another difference between the two views is that Skinner seems to take the success of his “animal conditioning” project and label it as proof for determinism. When in reality people have been using this behavior to conduct what they believe as “free will” for centuries; Skinner simply prettied it up. Williams openly admits that he has proven nothing only that it makes much, much, more since to endorse “free will” over determinism. Especially if we want to live a moral existence in a community of others.
Philosophy 1000
Instructor: Holbrook
24 September, 2011
Determinism/ two sides of the Coin
B.F. Skinner’s definition for determinism is: asserting that, behavior is fully determined by environmental stimuli. William James defined determinism as: the belief that everything that happens must happen exactly the way it does. In completely different words, both of these definitions agree exactly that determinism would mean we have no free will in the choices we “think” were making. We don’t do life; life does us, in other words.
Skinner is notorious for turning positive and negative reinforcements into a provable science when engineering behavior. The “skinner box”, they called it, was a box where a rat was rewarded shocks or treats based on the desirable behavior, and it worked. A simple example of skinners view on determinism would be if I come up to you and push you, I’ve literally taken away your free will to be moved. According to Skinner, all natural laws and environmental stimuli act as these sorts of antecedent causes which determine our behavior, similar to the “push.”
It may never be proven that humans are more naturally designed to be “happy” or “sad”, positive and likeable traits over negative and unlikable ones. Now according to James- “In the absence of conclusive proof, we are free to decide which belief better suits our needs.” James simply suggests then, that we should pick the happy and positive route because it evidently comes with many more rewards in this life. So James converts this thinking to determinism. If determinism was a proven, actual and conclusive fact, then there would exist no ongoing debate among philosophers; however it is not conclusive or absolute at all. So the only absolute and conclusive fact in this matter of determinism is that there is no absolute and conclusive facts and proof, for, or against determinism. Proven that there is no absolute answer either way, we have the liberty to decide which view “works for us.”
And really this is exactly what both sides of the argument are doing anyways. Skinner’s side simply chooses to live a life believing that determinism is real, and William’s side lives a life believing that determinism is not. “Different strokes for different folks.” Another difference between the two views is that Skinner seems to take the success of his “animal conditioning” project and label it as proof for determinism. When in reality people have been using this behavior to conduct what they believe as “free will” for centuries; Skinner simply prettied it up. Williams openly admits that he has proven nothing only that it makes much, much, more since to endorse “free will” over determinism. Especially if we want to live a moral existence in a community of others.