Free Will and Determinism
Is our behavior driven by our own free will or is there an antecedent cause to all that occurs in our lives? This is a question that has plagued psychologists and philosophers alike for centuries. There are arguments to support both theories of free will and determinism, although neither can be proven as the factor that truly guides human behavior.
According to the theory of universal determinism, causal laws govern all. With this theory, knowing all the properties of the universe would allow you to unfailingly predict all future events. Simple evidence for determinism is that science seems to eventually find a cause for things. Free will argues that we cannot ignore that common sense tells us if we feel compelled to do so, we can make a change. If determinism were true, no person could be held against for his or her actions as causality meant for it to happen. However, the determinism theory attempts to go beyond that and assume that our behavior is already pre-determined by previous events, which does not allow us to change.
Free will means that we can and have overcome our desires and inclinations. Both common sense and fact show that we can actively change our behavior. We don’t feel compelled by unknown forces to act in a certain way, and at times of decision we know there are other choices.
A determinist’s reply would state that humans are ignorant of the forces around them that are actually controlling their behavior in this sense; man becomes a puppet to irresistible forces acting upon him. Neither the free will nor the determinism theories can be proven to be wholly causal of human behavior. Alternate theories are formulated that incorporate main points of free will and determinism that appear...
... middle of paper ...
...ough good reasons alone may not be enough to make a person choose. Impulses and emotions all come into play when choosing to behave a certain way.
Works Cited
Clarke, Randolph. Indeterminism and Control. American Philosophy Quarterly, 1995: 32, 125-139.
Double, Richard. Misdirection in the Free Will Problem. American Philosophy Quarterly, 1997: 34, 357-367.
Hutto, C.W., McGahan, J.R., Pryor, P.L., Williamson, D. A Preliminary Study of the Effect of Imaginary Sexual Stimulation on the Perceived Covariation Between Freedom and Responsibility. The Journal of Psychology, 2000: 134, 645-663.
Sokol, Moshe. Maimonides on Freedom of the Will and Moral Responsibility. Harvard Theological Review, 1998: 91, 25-40.
Schick, T & Vaughn, L. Do We Have Free Will? A Review of the Leading Theories Shows That the Question is Answerable After All. Free Inquiry, 1998: 18, 43-48.
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
In philosophy today, free will is defined as, “the power of human beings to choose certain actions, uninfluenced by pressure of any sort, when a number of other options are simultaneously possible.” Philosophers have debated the issue of whether humans truly possess free will since ancient times. Some argue that humans act freely, while others believe that, “Every event, including our choices and decisions, is determined by previous events and the laws of nature—that is, given the past and the laws of nature, every event could not have been otherwise,” which is an idea known as determinism (Barry, #14). This relationship between free will and determinism continues to puzzle philosophers into the twenty-first century. An example of a piece to the free will puzzle, are the schools of thought of Incompatibilism and Compatibilism. Incompatibilism is defined as,
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
The argument of whether humans are pre-determined to turn out how we are and act the way we do or if we are our own decision makers and have the freedom to choose our paths in life is a long-standing controversy. As a psychologist in training and based on my personal beliefs, I do not believe that we truly have this so called free will. It is because of this that I choose to believe that the work of free will by d’Holbach is the most accurate. Although the ideas that Hume and Chisolm present are each strong in their own manner, d’Holbach presents the best and most realistic argument as to how we choose our path; because every event has a cause, we cannot have free will. Not only this, but also, that since there is always an external cause, we can never justify blame. Now let’s review Hume and Chisolm’s arguments and point out why I do not think that they justly describe free will.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Since the foundation of philosophy, every philosopher has had some opinion on free will in some sense, from Aristotle to Kant. Free will is defined as the agent's action to do something unimpeded, with many other factors going into it Many philosophers ask the question: Do humans really have free will? Or is consciousness a myth and we have no real choice at all? Free will has many components and is fundamental in our day to day lives and it’s time to see if it is really there or not.
Determinism currently takes two related forms: hard determinism and soft determinism [1][1]. Hard determinism claims that the human personality is subject to, and a product of, natural forces. All of our choices can be accounted for by reference to environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary (biological) causes. Our total character is a product of these environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary forces, thus our beliefs, desires, values and habits are all outside of our control. The hard determinist, therefore, claims that our choices are determined by these factors; free will is an illusion because the choices and decisions we make are derived from our character, which is completely out of our control in creating. An example might help illustrate this point. Consider a man who has just repeatedly stabbed another man outside of a bar; the other man is dead. The hard determinist would argue that there were factors outside of the killer’s control which led him to this action. As a child, he was constantly beaten by his father and was the object of ridicule and contempt of his classmates. This trend of hard luck would continue all his life. Coupled with the fact that he has a gene that has been identified with male aggression, he could not control himself when he pulled the knife out and started stabbing the other man. All this aggression, and all this history were the determinate cause of his action.
Determinism being applied to us would be considered cause and effect. Our actions are programmed by genetic predispositions and the messages of socialization. A humans actions and behavior reflects that persons doing the best he or she can. It is assumed that everything that happens to a person happens because of the presence of necessary and sufficient conditions or antecedent variables. Determinist perspective believes that there is an order to human life based on scientific and logical principles by which specific manifestations of human behavior are necessary outcomes of existing preconditions. Soft determinist is the position or view that casual determinism is true but we still act as free morally responsible agents when in the absence of external constraints our actions are caused by
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.