Do we have free will? This is one of the most ancient questions of philosophy that countless philosophers have discussed and debated without coming to a conclusive answer. But to me the answer is quite simple, especially in our world today, how are we supposed to have free will?
We are living in a world dictated by a bountiful amount of external factors such as laws and rules, and we are controlled by a handful of the most powerful people in the world. Now some may propose the argument that we don’t have to abide by the laws and rules but by definition, free will is the power of being able to act without constraints of necessity or fate. If one does not abide by the powerful people or rules, their fate is now in jeopardy.
Focusing more on a philosophical
…show more content…
Determinism essentially states that all events, including human actions, are determined by external factors such as the past and every event is inevitable. To visualise this, take a domino set for example. If the first domino falls, the domino next to it must fall as well and there is nothing that can stop this conclusion from occurring. Furthermore, I am a incompatibilist so I also think that as long as determinism is true, free will cannot be …show more content…
This is essentially just a counter-argument to the idea that the future is a clean slate while the past is etched in stone. According to the consequence argument, if determinism is true, the past directly impacts the future and therefore the future is just as determined as the past is. This can also be presented in the form of a propositional statement, PQ, where “P” represents the past and “Q” represents the future. Now using propositional logic we can deduce the conclusion that if “P” is true then “Q” must also be true which means that no one has a choice about the
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 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.
Moving forward, according to John Cowburn author of Free Will, Predestination and Determinism (2008), “determinism is the philosophical view is that all humans’ actions are predetermined and that every event an individual encounters can be explained.” (p. 144)” Thus, every event that has happened in one’s life, happens as a result of previous events.
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,
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.
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.
Free will is a problem that has been occupying the minds of many philosophers. The classical debate is whether we have free will or we are determined and therefore free will in an illusion. There are many views that philosophers have brought to the table in order to tackle this debate. Some of which are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Harry Frankfurt’s general intake on the debate is that free will is not about having the ability to do otherwise. Instead, free will is about having the ability to make judgements about our desires. The purpose of this paper is to expound and asses Harry Frankfurt’s semi-compatibilist view, his concept of a person, and how it relates to the freedom of the will.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism
The modern field of cognitive science combines research from fields such as computer science, psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience in order to study the processes of the mind. Using a framework of representational structures and operational procedures, cognitive science has been able to make significant contributions to the study of cognition and information processing. This interdisciplinary approach has been so successful that its application has been extended to areas like metaphysics, which was once considered to be outside the realm of empirical study; theorists hope that cognitive science may provide insight into questions related to the fundamental nature of existence, such as the debate between free will and determinism.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
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
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.
“The determinist view of human freedom is typically based off of the scientific model of the physical universe” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 176). They believe that since events in the physical universe as well as the biological realm consistently display casual connections, and because humans are a part of the physical universe and biological realm, it is a reasonable assumption that all of our actions (and the choices that initiated the actions) are also casually determined, eliminating the possibility of free choice ( Chaffee, 2013, p. 176).... ... middle of paper ... ...
Nature is complicated. It includes many different sorts of things and one of these is human beings. Such beings exhibit one unique yet natural attribute that others things apparently do not—that is free will.
Free will is defined as the capacity of rational agents to choose one course of action over other various alternatives. Free will is also inseparable from moral responsibility because if one has the ability to make a decision, one is to be held morally accountable for that decision. For centuries philosophers have debated whether free will is possible. Determining whether or not we have free will calls us to question the structure of nature. Do we have the power to alter the order of the world or influence events with the decisions we make?