Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Free will vs determinism debate
Free will vs determinism debate
Determinism vs free will
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Determinism and Free Will
Are we, as humans, truly free or not? For me, I wake up every morning, go to class or work, go to the gym, hang out with my friends, etc., but does this mean that I am free? In order to answer this question, I believe we need to ask a few questions. For one, are the choices that I make in life free or determined by other external factors? Also, are the paths that I choose and my own actions, my own responsibility? Philosophers Baron D’Holbach and Walter Terence Stace offer two different interpretations on where humans stand with freewill. They examine nature and how other people’s own freewill play a part in our own actions and in our own fate. While both philosophers present their own intelligent opinions on the matter, I find some fault in Baron D’Holbach’s opinion and agree more with Walter Terence Stace; that humans do in fact have free will.
Baron D’Holbach, one of the most well-known determinists, stated that human beings are just like any other living species, fitting into the natural world, therefore making us subjected to the casual laws of the universe. We are like animals in and an “integral part” of the natural world, thus we must follow the same rules as everyone else in the universe. Further, he believed that our “will” is a result of brain chemistry and the interaction with the environment. From this, he claims that free will cannot exist because instead, casual laws determine one’s mental state. But what if someone was given a choice? For example, say a very thirsty man is offered a drink, but is informed that this drink is poisoned. This thirsty man denies the drink, so from his decision, dos this mean that he has chosen freely not to drink it, despite the fact that h...
... middle of paper ...
... protest, while an unfree act is someone starving because they are stranded. While the first person chose to starve, the second is unfree because he did not choose to starve.
In conclusion, I believe that is difficult to answer the question on determinism vs. free will. What is freedom? I think that both the ability to freely choice along with free will are present in our lives. External and internal factors are both huge influences on our lives, beyond our control, but because they are beyond our control does not mean that we cannot make changes. Yes, we are all born as a certain nationality, gender, race, country, and exposed to different experiences, yet we still have the ability to grow and change. If one can acknowledge these differences and what we can and cannot control, then we can move on to other forms of change and then truly experience free will.
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.
Before we can discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James we have to know the definitions of the items the issue is about. Free will according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "The power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill act is a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law of causality." So according to this statement freewill is the ability for humans to make decisions without influences or outside restrictions.
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
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.
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.
The topic of freewill vs. determinism has always been something that has interested me. I follow the Christian faith very strongly but my views on the subject vary almost daily. The concept of freewill and determinism is something that, as a Christian, I often struggle with. By no means do I think that I have all the answers or that I am right. I believe that in order to find the truth or what is right you have to be willing to accept that everything you believe could be false. This is a topic that I have asked about and debated with many different Christian leaders including pastors, missionaries and youth ministers, as well as other people belonging to different faiths. No answer was the same which shows that peoples view on the subject are vastly different. My view tends to be on the side of the Christian Bible. I believe that we have freewill but what we do in life has already been determined.
Many people often wonder what influences their choices, why they do the things they do, and why the world functions the way it does. Many like to argue that people make the choices they make because things are determined by nature and nurture, no other factors. Others like to argue that people have full control over the choices they make and there are no constraining factors. In this paper I will demonstrate that determinism is false and people are not typically determined by nature and nurture to perform the evil actions they do. I will identify what determinism is, the different forms of determinism, why people find it to be true, why I find it false, and show different examples of why. I will then go on to discuss free will, the different forms of free will, and why people do things out of free will.
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
Determinists may believe in the power of God. Those who do believe God has already determined how our lives are going to play out way in advance before we are born. As Pribble wrote it, “it’s ‘All part of God’s grand scheme.’” God is almighty and has made us the people we are today with his well thought out plans for us that we are following to his script. We do not have the power to go against his will and freely do as we please. On the other hand, free will believers may also believe in God, yet he has given us the freedom to do as we please. Albert Einstein captures this idea when he says, “God doesn’t play dice” (Free Will and Determinism). We, as humans, have the choice to live and do whatever we want. We are given both positive and negative choices so that we may freely decide how we live our life and our choices will ultimately result in where we go when we die. Pribble also states that our choices predict our afterlife in heaven with God, or in hell with the
We have developed a paradox in our thinking. How can we have free will and the remainder of the universe be deterministic? Our attempts at resolution have been primarily religion oriented. This resolution presumes that we humans are special within the universe. The devine creator gave us free will. Simple as that! The downside of such resolution is that it is not based upon knowledge. It is faith. We might argue that it is an a priori principle. However, this position is tenuous since none of our observation or data support this principle. The logical resolution is to postulate that we do not possess free will. Rather, we have the impression of free will because we do not know all the factors and events which determine our choices or decisions. Therefore, in the presence of inadequate knowledge, we have an illusion of free will, but with more knowledge we would be able to see the determinism in our actions.
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 states that natural laws determine the way things will be. Therefore, if one day all the laws of nature and fundamental particles in the universe are understood, it would be possible to apply these laws and characteristics to determine how everything will be, including how each decision made will turn out. If everything can be determined in this way, and the result of a decision is already known, then it is not possible to have free will, because there is no option not to choose the choice already predicted.
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).
There are three prominent philosophers that will be the focus of this section. Those philosophers are Paul Holbach, W.T. Stace, and A.J. Ayer and each of them have a different view on free will and determinism and whether or not they fit together. Holbach takes the stance of incompatibility and firmly believes that free will and determinism cannot be reconciled while Stace and Ayer think to the contrary. Holbach thinks that free will is simply an illusion and that even the
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.