I'm finding my mind drifting towards predeterminism lately. Which is odd as it is not something I have generally given credence to. I'm not sure why, considering recent things I've read and studied are quite contrary. None the less, I find myself introspectively judging my actions and wondering how much I am in control of any of them. Am I working hard because I possess some work ethic others do not? Or am I overcoming barricades that all of us face? OR, is it more likely I'm a worker ant who is incapable of behaving differently. I suppose it's not a far cry from my fixation on deontology. Am I behaving morally well by working hard? Am I behaving morally well based on the outcomes? Or am I just doing what I must do like a robot? Obviously, I don't get to know the answer. Lately, it is plaguing my day dreaming.
To clarify what Deontology is, if the reader is unfamiliar: Deontology is a philosophy of morals that argues that the intent is what determines whether an action is "right" or "wrong."
It is contrasted to many philosophies, one example is Consequentialism: "In moral philosophy, consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct." Wikipedia.
There are many terms and variations of either. For the sake of this post, I am simply explaining that the idea being wrestled with is whether intent is the ultimate determinate of the morality of one's actions, and I understand that philosophy by the name Deontology.
With that established, how does it play into the question I'm captivated by? Well, if Deontology requires that intent decides the morality more than the consequence, then free will is a necessity. For a long time, I have thought in terms that would be defined by Deontology, but never knew a word for the view until recently. Giving it a term is not terribly important. Within my own mind, I have evaluated and judged my own actions by their intent. I will give examples in both directions of where this conflicts with the perceived morality of the consequence.
"Good" deed without good intent: I have a mechanical inclination and am able to fix things. My life experience has nurtured that gift and expanded my ability to fix things. Sometimes, I want to fix something primarily because I can fix it. I feel drawn to it.
If I happen to hear someone mention that something is broken, my ears perk up. If I am able to fix it, or even have a suspicion I might figure it out, I feel compelled to volunteer to do so. To the person being helped, they have a problem and I am helping to solve it, with no expectation of payment. Consequentially speaking; I have saved them money, time, and stress. However, to view it through Deontology, and how I have always assessed these things, I don't believe I have done anything "good" in that situation. An opportunity arose near me to do something that I feel driven to do. The internal reward of the satisfaction that accompanies fixing something is the only real motivator. It is merely convenient that it benefits the other person and they view it as good because that allows me to do the thing I want to do. In a sense, it almost feels like they are the one doing the good deed by allowing me to do it. If I am to be completely honest, I irritates me if I am not allowed to help. If someone is to say "Oh no, that's okay, I'm good." Internally I become angry. I keep it internal, and I believe it is a wrong and inappropriate reaction, but it is my natural reaction. To make a hyperbole: If I eat a cookie because I wanted it, and it happens to benefit someone greatly, the outcome would not be to my credit.
"Bad" deed without bad intent: Here is where my mind errs against me. If I were to swing my arm blindly and strike someone, it becomes less clear. I feel that, similarly, there was no bad intent, and therefore the bad outcome seems coincidental and not the result of a bad deed by me. However, I still believe that I am responsible for that outcome. Apologies and amends that are owed would be my responsibility, regardless of my intent. So why does my mind make this exception? I think it is because: A good outcome without good intention requires no correction as no one is negatively effected. A bad outcome without bad intention victimizes someone who certainly did not deserve it, therefore balance is needed to make amends. When you dwell on it, that is where I think it gets really confusing. Why must we "balance" the bad with good? We do not do the opposite, nor would it make sense to us. "Thanks for fixing my faucet, now I gotta slash your car tires." Would it not still be an effort towards "balance?" You could make the argument, as I did, that good requires no restoration, but bad does. I think that argument is weak though. Sometimes the "good" to balance the bad thing, if it was intentional, is a repayment of bad. "You purposefully hurt him, so you must go to jail." Which we consider justice, and even sometimes balance. I am not arguing against consequences for bad behavior, nor recognition of good behavior. I only argue that within myself, it's all a mess. I see the logic, but I also see the flaws in it. I can't seem to come up with a way to assess my thoughts that is not flawed.
When the idea that everything could be predetermined works its way into my ruminations, it shakes the already soft foundation of my assessment. If things were predetermined, then my "intent" does not actually exist. It would just be a perceived experience along side events unfolding, but not actually correlated to them. It could be an algorithmic result of what I was destined to experience and interpret, but without the chance of any of it being changeable. The contrast between the two is in that we can't truly know or prove whether we have free will or we don't. While it may keep philosophers busy trying to work the ideas over, anyone who does knows a definitive answer is impossible. I know what I personally believe, but it is as irrelevant in this discussion as what you believe. Who can say either of us truly chose to believe it? Interesting thought: -If Free Will exists, and you believe in it, then you chose to believe in it, and are right. -If Free Will does NOT exist, and you believe in it, then you are wrong, but never had a choice. -If Free Will exists, and you do NOT believe in it, then you are wrong. -If Free Will does NOT exist, and you do NOT believe in it, then you are correct, but never had a choice. Which interestingly makes only one combination a situation of correctness. The only other options are to be wrong, or have no say in the matter. That one combination is also the only one in which any of my self evaluation of morality would have any relevance.