How Convincing Is Hume's Solution to the Free Will Problem?

How Convincing is Hume's solution to the Free Will Problem?

In his account of liberty and necessity in section VII of "an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Hume makes the bold claim that the solution to the problem of "liberty"- meaning free will, and "necessity"- meaning determinism, can be agreed upon by all, simply by redefining each of the terms, he states "a few intelligible definitions would immediately put an end to the controversy". In this essay I will argue that this is too audacious as an argument, which can also be challenged and falsified on a number of levels.

Hume's "Doctrine of Necessity" is an account of determinism, which defines the subject as a combination of two things; a constant conjunction and a feeling of anticipation. Hume states that the constant conjunctions between events present to us "observable patterns" of nature, and from experience of these uniformities we adopt a feeling of anticipation about certain events and how they will occur. Hume argues that this also applies to human action, as this exhibits the same regularity as observed in nature, therefore we make predictions about human behaviour just as we do in the natural world. To help illustrate his point, Hume provides the reader with a scenario;

"a man who at noon leaves his purse full of gold on the pavement at Charing cross, may aswell expect that it will fly away like a feather, as that he will find it untouched an hour after"

Although Hume admits that there is bound to be variation from circumstance to circumstance, we can readily admit that there is a definite uniformity in human behavior, and for those occasions when behavior seems to be totally anomalous Hume can also account, he argues; "the most irregular and unexpected solutions of men may frequently be accounted for by those who know every particular circumstance or situation"

Hume goes on to define liberty, not as pure spontaneity of actions, but the ability to act in accordance with ones will, for example; "if we choose to remain at rest, we may. If we choose to move, we also may". Hume argues that this version of freedom is "universally allowed to everyone who isn't a prisoner in chains" therefore Hume believes that being free is the ability to do as your will incurs, without being restricted by external forces.

Unlike many other philosophers, Hume makes the radical claim that liberty and necessity are in fact compatible, he argues

-We act freely when we act in accordance with our will

-Our will determines us to do things, but these actions are subject to the regularity of necessity.

Therefore, we do have the ability to be free as we are able to act on our personal will, but the way the will transpires to action is subject to determinism.

A complete discussion of Hume's account would involve consideration of both the terms "liberty" and "necessity" - however I wish to focus on Homes account of liberty, which is considered to be his most essential contribution to the free will problem, a contribution that has been subject to serious criticism.

One of these criticisms is that the kind of liberty that Hume outlines is inadequate. According to Hume's definition, we are free insofar as we are not restricted by external constraint. If abiding by this definition, then surely I am free if I wish to smoke five hundred cigarettes a day, and eat ten million cookies, and I choose to act in compliance with this will then I am free as there is no external constraint, however, would we not just view this overindulgence as the result of being a slave to ones desires, therefore making us unfree?

Furthermore, if we are to adhere to Hume's argument that the essence of freedom is the unconstrained acting on the determination of our will then we would have to accept that the actions of a lunatic are free, this seems counterintuitive.

In an attempt to respond on Hume's behalf, Harry Frankfurt identifies the complexity of the will as a means of answering the aforementioned problem. Frankfurt argues that the will is not one single unitary force, it is much more multifaceted