Harry Frankfurt is a refined and well known philosopher who has considered the issue of freedom through thought. Or in other words the debate on free will. Frankfurt has been claimed and is well known for being considered a traditional compatibilist. Frankfurt believes that there is a difference between freedom of an action chosen by the person and the freedom to commit the action through self will. Frankfurt explains this using many examples. In Frankfurt’s “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person” he discusses the difference between a person and an animal. In Frankfurt’s opinion animals are only capable of first order desires and this sets them apart from people who are capable of second order desires (Frankfurt,1) . In Frankfurt’s …show more content…
However, in the end the person’s free will to choose and do the action is the same thing. Also, I cannot agree with Frankfurt’s opinion as there are too many flaws in his argument that lead one to believe that this simply isn’t possible and that determinism and free will are incompatible. Frankfurt uses three different views or takes on addicts to portray his view on free will. The first addict that is mentioned is the wanton addict. The wanton addict, an addict which has both first order and second order desires. Each of these desires (to take the drug or not to take the drug) are equally weighted in the mind of the wanton addict because they have no higher order volition which would normally sway in favour of one action. The unwilling addict on the other hand, also shares a first order desire to take the drug, similarly to the wanton addict but unlike the wanton addict the unwilling addict possesses a second order volition in which causes for their first order desire to not be their will (due to the lack of a second order desire). Unfortunately, this desire constitutes their decision to go against their will and to consume the drug. Finally, the willing addict also possesses first order desires and a second
“Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Dictionary.com). The novel Slaughterhouse five portrays the idea of not having free will. The award winning author, Kurt Vonnegut, tells
There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.
...on, freedom of the will is needed to clarify that just because one’s actions are capable of being predicated, it does not follow that I am constrained to do one action or the other. If I am constrained though, my will is absent from the situation, for I really don’t want to give someone my money with a pistol to my head, and it follows my action is constrained and decided by external compulsion, rather than internal activity, or stated otherwise, that internal activity being free will, and thus free will is reconciled with determinism.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
He states, “A person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise”. Frankfurt defends the idea that one must be morally responsible in some sense rather than just blaming the past, in a rather pessimistic manner. He also suggests that you are not responsible if you could not have avoided the situation and decision that you made. In Harris’s case, Frankfurt would say that Harris could be held responsible for his actions even though there is a possibility that Harris could not have acted otherwise. In P.F. Strawson’s essay “Freedom and Resentment”, he states, “This is that the notions of moral guilt, of blame, of moral responsibility are inherently confused and that we can see this to be so if we consider the consequences either of the truth of determinism or of its falsity” (72). Whether or not you one has the ability to control their actions, they still have the freedom to express feelings and emotions subsequent to their determined actions. We experience consequences in regards to our actions and most would even say morally
There are a lot of different things that come to mind when somebody thinks of the phrase Free Will, and there are some people who think that free will does not exists and that everything is already decided for you, but there are also people who believe in it and think that you are free to do as you please. An example that explains the problem that people have with free will is the essay by Walter T. Stace called “Is Determinism Inconsistent with Free Will?”, where Stace discusses why people, especially philosophers, think that free will does not exist.
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches of free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will.
In his book, Thomas Hobbes argued that freedom is comprised when there are no outer impediments towards a person when engaging in what he desires to do: “Unregulated agent is that one can engage in what he wills and bear as per desire that liberty is absenteeism of outer impediments.” According to this definition, free will is the ability of a person to make a decision without being prevented or obstructed by any part. Another philosopher (Hume) defined freedom- liberty, as power of doing or of not doing, as per the d...
The distinction between second order desires and second order volitions can be difficult to grasp, but I shall present my best interpretations of Frankfurt’s readings. Second order volitions are judgements that we make about our desires. One last time, suppose person A is on a diet so he admits a firm resolution about his diet. So he thinks (I should want X) or (I should want to not X). Person A thinks he should want to not eat dessert in his new diet resolution. In saying this, person A is placing a valued judgement about his desires. He is someone who is not just letting his desires pull him one way or another. He is placing a valued and examined judgement about which one of his desires is the desire he wants to constitute his will. In saying “I should want to not eat dessert”, he is saying that there is an important sense in which wanting to not eat dessert more accurately characterizes who he stands for and what his values
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
In the world of Philosophy, there is a reoccurring argument that takes several sides: Can we be free even if the future is determined by the past? The question of freedom does affect ones way of life, which philosophers help reconstruct the there premises that show the problem of free will.
“Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). With this question to Augustine of Hippo, Evodius begins a philosophical inquiry into nature of evil. Augustine, recently baptized by Saint Ambrose in Milan, began writing his treatise On Free Choice of the Will in 387 C.E. This work laid down the foundation for the Christian doctrine regarding the will’s role in sinning and salvation. In it, Augustine and his interlocutor investigate God’s existence and his role in creating evil. They attempt not only to understand what evil is, and the possibility of doing evil, but also to ascertain why God would let humans cause evil. Central to the premise of this entire dialogue is the concept of God, as relates to Christianity; what is God, and what traits separate Him from humans? According to Christianity, God is the creator of all things, and God is good; he is omnipotent, transcendent, all-knowing, and atemporal- not subject to change over time- a concept important to the understanding of the differences between this world and the higher, spiritual realm He presides over. God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3).
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).
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.