Defending Hard Determinism Against the Strongest Objections Raised Against It

However the ambiguity and concern about the weakness of the analogies already mentioned for sub conclusion 1 remain. As described above Hume objected to the analogies used to support The Argument from Design due to their weakness and lack of similarity. He argues that they fail to support the idea that the same cause was brought about by the same effect, i.e. that a superior intelligent designer was involved in the existence of natural occurrences in the same way as a human designer’s involvement with a human made artefact. The objection is that the analogies are weak and do not prove conclusive.

Hard Determinism argues that every event is causally determined. For an event ‘A’ to occur casually means that there are antecedent causes that ensure the occurrence of ‘A’ in accordance with impersonal, mechanical causal laws. To clarify hard determinism further, let me present hard determinism as an argument. Basically hard determinism argues that: (a) Determinism is true (b) Determinism is incompatible with free will (Holbach, 451). In defense of premise (a), the hard determinist says that obviously everything is caused, therefore determinism is true. To prove that determinism is false, the opponent would have to come up with an example of an uncaused event. To defend premise (b), the hard determinist

David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was

     Now Hume proposed that all inferences come from custom, not reasoning. Through custom or habits, we have become accustomed to expect an effect to follow a cause. This is not a rational argument. This argument centers on the theory of constant conjunction, which does not fall under either fork of reason. “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not reasoning.”(57)

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume states, “there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion” (Hume, 1993: 41). Hume establishes in section II that all ideas originate from impressions that employ the senses (11). Therefore, in order for there to be an idea of power or “necessary connexion,” there must be impressions of this connection present in single instances of cause and effect; if there are no such impressions, then there cannot be an idea of “necessary connexion” (52). To illustrate his statement, Hume examines four situations:

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume ponders the idea of causality setting himself as the skeptic. According to Hume, although it may seem there are two incidents happening, one after the other, it is nearly impossible to identify the connection. It is with this, that Hume disputes the idea of causality. It is possible that one thing causes another; however, it is just as plausible to conceive that it does not. A may follow B, but it is still possible that A does not cause B. Despite this, we still understandably assume that what follows from one another is cause and effect. Hume claims that the confidence we hold in causation in created through these repetitive experiences and thus this intuition cannot be confirmed nor denied. Furthermore, Hume also believes that those who misleadingly trust that there is a necessary connection within nature will resist this opinion. Additionally, Hume believes that causal happenings are not necessary relations between objects or events, but are

Hume’s claim that the only semblance of causation we’re able to discover is that one idea or thing follows from another, fails to recognize that we discover necessary causation through simple experiences almost daily. While it may be the case that we truly cannot see the connection between why we can move our limbs, but cannot alter the state of some organs or control their actions through experience alone, we can discover the causal relationship between other things. Hume argues that “while the impulse of one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second[,] this is the whole that appears to the outward senses” (Hume 558). His claim is that “the mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects” and that as a result, there is nothing derived from the experience that suggests “the idea of power or necessary connection” (Hume 558). However, that which we perceive with our outward senses does allow us to derive a necessary connection between ideas or things. We are able to observe that the necessary connection allowing the billiard ball to move is that another object interferes and causes its motion. We know this through experience because we consistently perceive another object interfering and causing the effect of the ball’s motion. In this sense, we can perceive many necessary connections, as the same is true with cutting

Hume argues that cause and effect or presumed connections between two events are false because according to the empiricist principle, we cannot tell where our impressions of the idea of cause come from. He says that there is no way we can prove that an effect is as a result of a particular cause, nor can we predict a future event based on past experiences or laws of nature. Hume further argues that our assumptions about causation are based on habits of our minds and experience; that our experience of observing two events occur repeatedly has led us to assume in our minds that those events are connected. This, he refers to as ‘constant conjunction’. Whereas, those events are actually based on probability. His argument is that causation has no

Hume’s (1739) regularity theory of causation began the debate of physical events and mental inferences. Hume reasoned that if we perceive a causal relationship between two events, then one will be a cause which in turn will lead the other; the event. These connections are known as prioritistic rationalism, as Hume quoted “By experience only that we can infer the existence of one object from that of another”. Causal relationships are based on three factors; resemblance, contiguity and causality. The cause and effect of an event is governed by physics, for example; a ball striking into

Section 7 of Hume’s An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding evaluates the concept of causation and “necessary connexion.” Hume comes to the conclusion that because human beings are incapable of perceiving the “necessary connexion” in cause and effect relationships, “cause” is nothing but the “idea” or impression of power or action. To illustrate his argument, the philosopher relies on his definitions of (1) impressions (immediate sensory perceptions) and (2) ideas (recollections of impressions that build upon each other and increase in complexity.) Over the course of the section, Hume attempts to prove that no impression exists that would suggest a connection or power between two objects/events. Thus, the “causation” apparent is formed of our expectation that one event will follow the other; in reality, human beings lack the capacity to perceive connection between two entities.

To establish determinism, we can admit by denoting that some events in our lives happen because of prior reasons without yet losing our sense of freedom. It is actually evident that the events and actions that an individual undertakes action have different effects upon him even though they may be past or present events. Though we might not be sure whether our past event result to our present status in life, it is pertinent to note that freedom in decision making is an open forum for each individual and impacts on later activities. We can admit that some events, for example, a next domino fall, are bound to happen because of a prior event. It is possible that if we have no power to act other than us, in fact, to act, then we have no free will. This argument for hard determinism is persuasive. It is certainly valid, and none of the premises appears to be clearly false. Although we have discovered a plausible argument in defense of hard determinism, most people find this argument to be impossible to accept. In our lives, we hold each other in account of our deeds that we had made wrong choices.

This paper focuses on the ideas of David Hume and his work concerning cause and effect. Firstly, I am going to explain impressions and ideas and why we cannot have the idea of power. Secondly, I am going to explain why Hume declares that there is a perception necessary connection between events. Thirdly, I will explain Hume’s definitions of causation and the conclusion he cones up with that states that cause is the conjunction that reinforces our ideas. Fourthly, I will point out that Hume’s idea of necessary connection has altered the causation debate. Lastly, I will raise two objections that question that viability of his causality argument.

David Hume asserts that the grounds upon which connections between causes and effects are established are not rooted in reason. Hume argues that while reason does play a large role in understanding rational relations of ideas, the same principles cannot apply to matters of fact. He justifies this claim with the fact that the associations we make between cause and effect are the result of constant conjunction and habituation. He also stresses the irrationality of the principle of uniformity of nature, which is a key principle of making connections between causes and effects. Although the observations of the nature of ideas surrounding cause and effect are sound, the conclusions of irrationality seem far stretched. He hastily throws around the label of “irrational”, and does not consider that perhaps lacking rationality in the classical sense is not necessarily conducive to being driven without reason.

David Hume is a British empiricist which means that he thought that all knowledge is ultimately rooted in sense experience and that all of our ideas derive from preceding impressions of sense or reflection, this theory had a huge effect on Humes account of causation. In this essay I will look at Humes account of causation and examine if any version of the Regularity View of causation can be defended.

What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by