The theory of free will that best describes Satan’s world.

Hard Determinism best describes Satan’s world in this context. Determinism, as defined in philosophy, asserts that our paths, including our moral choices, are predetermined by existing causes. In other terms, freedom is merely an illusion. Satan says that God has control over everything that happens; everything is inevitable. He feels that God bestowed living creatures with circumstantial freedom but took away their metaphysical freedom (Davis, 2020). In other terms, one can have the freedom to move around, stand or sit, but never have the luxury to choose their path.

For instance, God knows Satan’s adventures even before he mentions them. Such implies that God makes people want or think about something. On the other hand, Satan contends that it is not dignified to have everything predetermined before it happens; he needs to act and get credit for his actions. Hard Determinism best describes Satan’s situation because it feels like a puppet at the mercy of his physical body and circumstance. Adam is another example, he thinks he is making choices, but in reality, he is only reacting to physical urges and events that have occurred before; he cannot act otherwise than he does (Davis, 2020).

The Determinism theory deserves a benefit of the doubt in explaining free will in modern society. There are numerous instances that determinists use to prove human behavior flows from environmental or genetic factors that occurred and are difficult to alter. For instance, a philosopher can argue that one does not have a choice for education, but instead, the person is born into an educated family. Hence, what appears to be a choice turns out to be a result of prior factors that happened. Similarly, it might sound like a choice when one prefers to eat salty foods over sugary foods, but a determinist will contend that a high affinity to salty draws from insufficient sodium.

Suppose hard determination is accurate. Would punishment for offenses ever be justified? Would praise for making the right choice appropriate? If the answer is no, would that constitute an argument against hard Determinism?

The Hard determinism theory might be correct, but it fails to address some vital ethical dilemmas. If people exist merely as puppets, then it will be challenging to account for mistakes and actions. Hard determinism supporters think that no one is subject to punishment, and punishing evildoers is equivalent to injustice (Balaguer, 2019). According to Davis’s story above, God confirms that he is perfectly reasonable, and everything we do is for the best. In other words, God predetermines everything, and since God cannot make a man do evil, everything we do is classified as useful. And this aggravates Satan, who thinks all praises should go to him individually for making the right choices.

Nevertheless, we still witness many injustices that happen every day. Peacemakers want good-doers to be rewarded and criminals to be locked away or punished. But this is contrary to what determinists commit to; they want criminals to be exemplified instead of being punished. I’m afraid I have to disagree with the latter. In my opinion, people should be held accountable for their actions. Wrongdoers should spend days in incarceration, whereas good deeds should always be rewarded. Glorifying ethical violations will increase crime and involve more people in the injustice system, resulting in backlash from society, among other repercussions. According to Muller, 2018, Determinism undermines free will and moral obligations. Therefore, implementing hard Determinism would only make things worse. It will be an uphill task to evaluate criminals and isolate them from saints. Metrics of punishment cannot be determined, and man cannot be held responsible. This a dogma that cannot be ignored.

According to compatibilism, if a dog has desires and often behaves accordingly, would he have free will? Why or why not?

Compatibilism is a modified determinism view; only that now, it pushes for the analogy of responsibility and accountability for human actions (Mackie, 2018). It does not hold that living creatures have free will; neither dispute the other two theories. However, it holds that all human actions are caused and predetermined, but voluntary actions are not impeded or constrained externally. Those who support this notion believe that living things can be blamed or held responsible for their choices if they follow their will. In other words, actions done forcibly through external factors or coercion do not need accountability. Therefore, the dog has no free will, even if it desires and responds accordingly. The animal is also accountable if the list of the other conditions that create the will arise from prior experiences that are inevitable such that the dog has to act and have freedom as per his will.

Contenders argue that it is impossible to achieve freedom in a deterministic world; therefore, nobody enjoys the freedom of will (Mackie, 2018). But here, compatibilism hints that we all have an appearance of free will, but we never use it because we make decisions using past experiences to determine the consequences of our choices. For instance, the dog might want to steal a bone but choose not to because he might offend the owner. Equally, a person may want to rob but decide otherwise because he or she will be pursued and taken to court or prison. If individuals had free will, they could steal and get away with it.

In conclusion, just like humans, dogs are either free or not. Voluntary behaviors can arise from events, conditions, or states within self like choices, the act of will, decisions, desires, among other agents. The fact that the dog can make choices for himself does not mean he has free will. All living creatures either enjoy free will, or they do not possess it at all.

References

Balaguer, M. (2019). Free Will, Determinism, and Epiphenomenalism. Psychology, 1-20.

Davis, T. (2020, August 19). “A Little Omniscience Goes A Long Way.” Retrieved from Krydragon.tripod.com: http://krydragon.tripod.com/text/a_little_omniscience.txt

Mackie, P. (2018). Compatibilism, Indeterminism, and Chance. Metaphysics, 265-287.

Muller, T. (2018). Determinism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 215-252.