Determinism is a philosophical doctrine, which provides that all occurrences, whether human decisions or others, happen in connection with the causes that existed previously (Cohen, 2011). It entails people’s mistaken praises of others when they do well and blames for others whenever they go wrong. Determinism can either be hard or soft. Hard determinism implies that people cannot blame or praise others for the actions they commit. Soft determinism, on the other hand, provides a satisfying account of morality of freedom (Cohen, 2011). Determinists in this case have to be precise in their agreement regarding determinant and non-determinant factors. It, however, does not deny the significance of moral responsibility in the society, but it prohibits holding people accountable for the actions that they commit following their inability to control their decisions, desires, beliefs and emotions (Cohen, 2011). The following are the strengths of determinism: it teaches people the manner in which people should carry themselves in regard to matters, or fortune gifts that they lack control over especially when they do not stream from their nature (Cohen, 2011).
The second strength is that determinism teaches people to act only in line with the requirements of nature (Cohen, 2011). They should, therefore, be active participants in the divine processes of nature, and perform more actions in order to comprehend nature. The third strength is that the doctrine teaches the procedures, which the authorities should follow while governing the citizens (Cohen, 2011). Fourthly, it raises life in the society to better levels because it discourages hatred among individuals (Cohen, 2011). The weaknesses of determinism are as follows: it is the main cause of fatalism since determination of everything happens beyond the control of humankind (Cohen, 2011). Secondly, it renders meaningless blames and praises especially if God is the one responsible for all actions among human beings (Cohen, 2011). Thirdly, it destroys the responsibilities of human beings especially where God causes all the actions of human beings (Cohen, 2011). Fourthly, determinism is irrational in the sense that non-rational forces determine everything (Cohen, 2011). The last weakness is that is self-defeating in the sense that both non-determinists and determinists support what they believe in. Determinists, however, propose that non-determinists ought to change their beliefs because they are wrong. The use of the terms ‘ought to change’ means that they have the freedom to change, and this contradicts determinism (Cohen, 2011).
Compatibilism, on the other hand, outlines that voluntary choice is compatible with the meticulous providence and predetermination of God (Salles, 2005). As the scripture puts it, divine determinism controls the circumstances, which cause human beings to exercise voluntary choices. Therefore, people do not make choices that contradict their desires in any way. The following are strengths of compatibilism: the most significant strength is that it offers foundation general enforceable rules and regulations (Salles, 2005). This implies that the choices that people make keep streaming from their desires, and that no other factor controls them. This, therefore, enables people to have a certain level of responsibility. The second strength is that compatibilism provides people with the moral authority of punishing others (Salles, 2005). This, in turn, provides basis for societal protection and justice. The third strength is that it supports the exclusivity of humankind (Salles, 2005). This implies that human beings are different from other animals because they have capacities to make choices. The fourth strength of compatibilism is that it elaborates the reason why people feel responsible and free (Salles, 2005). This implies that people feel the freedom to have acted in a different manner after having made their choices. There are; however, a number of weaknesses of compatibilism as follows: the most significant weakness is that the logic of compatibilism is susceptible to attacks (Salles, 2005). There is autonomy of impulsiveness that comprises the key issue in compatibilism’s line of argument, which lacks sufficient arguments for people’s moral responsibility. Secondly, compatibilism is weak for arguing that people have the moral responsibility. Salles (2005) asserts that people can only bear the entire responsibility for their morals if they have their designer.
Libertarianism is a concept, which represents the mixture of liberty, responsibility and endurance (Brennan, 2012). It entails people’s freedom to live their lives and make choices in a peaceful manner, prohibition of the use of force on one another, and upholding respect for the peaceful choices that people make in the society. Therefore, libertarians view individuals as the most fundamental social elements (Brennan, 2012). It advances that people own their lives and material possessions and that they reserve the authority to make choices regarding the direction of their lives. The following are the strengths of libertarianism: the greatest strength of libertarianism is that it provokes people to think (Brennan, 2012). This way, they counter the orthodox of everybody else’s. This is because of their pivotal positions in political systems. The second strength is that libertarianism promotes the freedom all people and allows them to follow their destinies in respect to their individual goals, values and beliefs (Brennan, 2012). The third strength is that it promotes peace. It nullifies the idea that a small elite group should be in control of the interests of the rest of the people (Brennan, 2012). The fourth strength is that it acknowledges that freedom is the best thing for paving the way to victory. The following are the weaknesses of libertarianism: libertarianism, in some cases, produces protests against the reigning authority or power (Brennan, 2012). The second weakness is that it denies people an opportunity to act in the process as conscious participants. Lastly, it has its foundation as the view of negative freedom (Brennan, 2012). The perception that no person should suffer from coercion and that they should not interfere with each other contradicts human nature.
In my own view, the most likely doctrine to be correct is libertarianism. This is because, in terms of wealth, libertarianism eliminates unnecessary burdens and instinctive regulations to create ways for free entrepreneurship (Brennan, 2012). In this manner, people participate in what they are best at in order to spur innovation and create wealth. Another reason is that it encourages self-reliance and responsibility (Brennan, 2012). Freedom of association implies that no coercion ties up people together except for mutual admiration and respect for one another. As Brennan (2012) argues, the consequences of tyrannical governances always are suffering and poverty situations in the society. Therefore, by empowering individuals, libertarianism enables people to be in charge of their own lives (Brennan, 2012).
This, in most cases, gives rise to the most peaceful, prosperous, and dynamic societies ever. Libertarianism, also, has positive effects to the poor. It allows citizens to keep their earnings, therefore, directing their wealth to the private sector (Brennan, 2012). This, in turn, allows creation of more jobs. This opposes the normal usual system, which allows the rich people in the society to conspire with the government to obtain public property by way of renowned taxation. In terms of national defense, libertarianism supports the formation of a non-interventionist military whose enemies keep decreasing with time (Brennan, 2012). In the long run, this reduces the necessity of a massive industry of defense, therefore, reducing the national budget.
You can order a unique paper on Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism at an affordable price.