Determinism: The Freedom Of Choice And The Freedom Of Action

As some believe that we humans have free will, they believe that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom of action. But, if all of our actions have a reason behind them, or if there is a causal explanation behind each of our choices, it is difficult to say that we actually have the freedom of will. For this reason, determinism challenges free will, as the determinist believes that all of our decisions are governed by some form of natural law, and that all of our behaviors are explainable by this law. The determinist believes that man cannot act freely if his actions are causally determined. As Philosopher A.J. Ayer suggests in Freedom and Necessity, if a man has a choice between choosing A or B, there will be a consistent explanation

Determinism challenges the idea of moral responsibility. When examining how we come to make a choice, we either make the choice by random chance or there is a reason behind the choice. If there is a reason behind the choice, that something influenced the choice, the decision to choose something freely does not exist as the choice was already determined. If we make the choice accidentally, we cannot be held morally responsible for a choice that is decided by chance. So, if the choice is not decided accidentally, there must be a causal explanation for the

This principle states that if one acts freely, then one could have done otherwise. The principle is associated with the claim that a person is not to be held morally responsible for actions that are due to unavoidable situations, or situations in which one is coerced to do something. However, we may argue that these claims are not necessarily true. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt argues this in his essay Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. In the situations of which a man is threatened or coerced to do something, it is difficult to determine what the man’s actions will be in those instances in response to the threat, as his decision to act will be subjective. However, in the case of which coercion actually affected the man, and that the force or suggestion was solely the reason why the man acted the way he did, it seems that he is not held morally responsible. But when the coercion does not affect the man, he is morally responsible for his action. This leads to the claim that a person is only held morally responsible in situations of coercion, when the suggestion itself is the sole factor in one’s decision making process. However, the principle of alternative possibilities provides no such explanation or association with such a claim. For this reason, we may challenge the principle of alternative possibilities, as there are quite a few situations which are exceptions