Free will represents an individual making choices or taking action without any constraints. While it can be argued that different aspects of determinism restrict or negate the possibility of free will, one should not assume that the presence of metaphysical, physical or scientific constraints nullify the possibility of free will. Furthermore, it should be noted that fear of reprisal may not be construed as inhibition to free will, because essentially, free will constitutes the ability of an individual to make a decision to do or not do something (Sartre, 1948).
In a theological context, Aristotle (in Thomsson, 1953) posits that free will, specifically individual free will, can operate with the perceived presence of a theological deity,
In this model, an individual may have various wants based on perceived need that can ultimately impact an individual’s behavior. In terms of volition, or when an individual acts upon a particular want, or may have several different wants that cause conflict, leading to the individual to encounter inaction. ( This alone would not constitute free will. However, according to Fisher, (1994; 1998) If a person was coerced into action, or behaviorally conditioned to act a certain way which could be against various levels of ordered wants, this model of free will would come into question in terms of actual free will. In other words, an individual may want to jog, and also need to go to the corner market. While getting dressed to run, the individual notes that it has started raining. The individual would experience a crisis of all wants at this point, and decide not to go out jogging or to jog to the corner market. Decision not to engage in a particular act of volition is also an example of free will (Tiempe, in IEP, 2015).
Determinism and Free Will
Causal Determinism, also called nomological determinism, (Tiempe in IEP, 2015) is a theory which posits that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature (Tiempe in IEP, 2015). Such predetermination, coupled with the influences of past events of an individual lifespan do not imply free will, but morealess that an individual is led, by some degree, by the influence and experience of the past, or what is previously known.
Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and
Human beings always believe that what they want to do is ‘up to them,' and on this account, they take the assumption that they have free will. Perhaps that is the case, but people should investigate the situation and find a real case. Most of the intuitions may be correct, but still many of them can be incorrect. There are those who are sceptical and believe that free will is a false illusion and that it only exists in the back of people’s minds, but society should be able to distinguish feelings from beliefs in order to arrive at reality and truth.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, and Anselm all address the concept of free will and God’s foreknowledge in their works “The City of God”, “The Consolation of Philosophy”, and “De Concordia”. While each work was written during a different time period, each of their approaches consists of a solution comprised of both unifying and unique points and arguments. While there is no clear contesting between one work and another, it is clear that free will is a complex and critical idea in Christian theology that has long since been debated. '
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.
...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.
Hard determinist view free will as incompatible with determinism, and therefore it does not exist. These philosophers, however, define free will as making decision in a random, uncaused way. B.F. Skinner would be an example of a hard determinist, where he simply does not accept the existence of freedom of will. David Hume, a 17th century philosopher, helped bring about soft determinism. He was the first to argue that maybe the root of the free will problem lied in the definition of free will. Instead of humans making decision in uncaused ways, maybe being free is doing what you want to do. By predicting what you want to do; to make you decision based on aspirations or desires, enables the concept of free will to work in the context of the determinist theory. Those who choose to accept both our choices being determined by outside factors, and accept that humans have the ability to make their own decisions based on these pressures, believe in the theory of compatibilism. Compatibilists, like A.J Ayer and Susan Wolf, define and defend their acceptance of both determinism and the existence of free will. Ayer finds two issues with “hard” compatibilism. He doubts that every event has a direct cause, which is at the core of determinism. While scientists have laws and theories that determine how actions are caused, like gravity and motion, there are still phenomena that science cannot explain their causes.
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 discretion, 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 skepticism in a strong systematic order.
The most inclusive perspective on free will, compatibilism, combines ideas of determinism and free will, claiming that although we do have the freedom of will and choice, our past experiences define our judgement and therefore our will. (McKenna) Determinists who disagree with the first part, free will, in compatibilism, agree with the later statement, that experiences playing a defining role in our will. In his book, “Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism” author Robert Bishop states the principle of deter...
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 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.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
Free will is the capacity that one has in choosing one’s own course of action, basically, having free will means that one has the ability to decide what one wants to do and he is the unique source of the decision. Moreover, free will is divided in two varieties, surface freedom and ultimate freedom; the first one is the ability to make your own choices to fulfill your desires, on the other hand, the second one is the power to form your own desires and then fulfill them. Most of the philosophers agree that the surface freedom exists and that we have it, however, the big question is in the existence of ultimate freedom.
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
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
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).