Paul Rée's The Illusion Of Free Will

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.

The way you were raised as a child has a greater effect in your life than you

However, this is entirely wrong, despite contrary belief, and Rée argues this with a high degree of effectiveness. His first example looks at a vixen, a female fox, who is contemplating whether to sneak into the chicken coop to hunt for mice or to go back to her young. In the example, the vixen comes to the decision to sneak into the chicken coop rather than to return to the den. Rée claims that she made this choice because her act of will was the result of the domination of the sensation of hunger and a few other determining factors at that moment in time (Rée, p. 441). Then, say, after some reflection, the vixen states that she could have acted differently if she wanted to. However, what she does not notice is that the degree of hunger and the existence of all other factors at that time evade her. She could not actually have acted any differently at that time than she original had. Her action of will was predetermined. I completely agree with this argument. The only way in which the vixen could have acted differently would be if different sensations were dominant over the ones that caused her original actions. If other sensations were present, then the vixen would have acted differently. This clearly illustrates that free will does not actually exist. If free will existed, then the vixen could actually have acted differently no

434). This is saying that the act of will cannot actually occur without something causing that action. If there is no cause, the will cannot act. This solidifies the idea that the will is not actually free. If the will were free, it would not be dependent on any cause or series of causes. Rée brings about a worthy argument involving a stone which aids in the illustration of the nonexistence of free will. In order for the stone to change position from where it sits at that very moment, whether it be by being thrown or by being kicked, its necessary cause must be present. As Rée states: “The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed” (Rée, p. 434). In this case, the cause would be the tossing of the stone, and the result would be the stone changing its position by flying through the air. This example proves that free will is nonexistent. The stone does not decide whether it is tossed or not. If the cause of the motion is present, then the will acts. However, if the cause of the motion is absent, then the stone would not move at all and would still sit at the same place. I agree with this argument. The motion of the stone is predetermined and there is nothing it can do about it. If the cause is present, the action will take place. Rée further argues that the will is subject to the law of causality and