Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusions about free will and determinism
How can free will and deternminism go together
How can free will and deternminism go together
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclusions about free will and determinism
Throughout this essay, I will discuss and analyse the reasons which make free will and determinism incompatible with one another. Free will is a term which implies that every human being has been given the gift of free will by God to choose either good or evil. Free will is a freedom which every human is entitled to which allows us to make our own decisions. Determinism is a term which implies that every event which happens in life, happens from a cause. Determinism indicates that humans cannot act any other way other than the way they act. Both terms are completely opposite from one another and I will discuss why throughout this essay.
Determinism and free will are two opposite terms which are not compatible with one another for many reasons.
…show more content…
Free will is one of the many gifts which God gave to humanity and it is in our power to make the right decisions. On the other hand, determinism deprives each human of the ability of choosing and having the power to make their own decisions. Determinism cannot be true as our actions are not pre-determined before events happen. God gave us the gift of free will because He has predestined what will happen to use during our lives. Galen Strawson stated “if events are not necessitated to occur just as they do, then we are still unable to exert control over our choices and actions” (Ethical Theory, 2012). The gift of free will results in an agent choosing their own course of action which is not determined by any previous or future events. The agent carries out their action in the way in which they wish to do so, and the agent makes their own choices. When an agent acts using their free will, they are right to be held morally responsible for their actions because events and actions are not pre-determined. For example, “a man's motives are not given by what was happening to him immediately before he started to act” (The Philosophical Review, 1957). Humanity have the gift of free will which allows us to make our own decisions. Free will can be a curse for some of us and for others it can be a blessing. God gave us the gift of free will so that we could live our life according to God and this would influence humanity to make the right decisions, but this is not always the case. Determinism if it were true, would mean that all our choices and actions would already be planned out including the bad ones, but Calvinists believe all of humanity go to either heaven or hell and this was predestined by God. When an agent makes a wrong decision and is punished, it would be morally wrong to blame God because the reason He gave
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.
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
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.
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.
Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are companionable philosophies. The question that is posed is; is it possible to believe in both ideas without being rationally erratic? Is there such thing as controlling every aspect of our life and choosing what we do and how we do it? Or is it previous events that have happened in our lives that cause everything that happens? It has been argued back and fourth for centuries, if free will and determinism are compatible and it will continue for many more. Throughout this essay, it will be argued that compatibilism cannot be defended, with use of sufficient evidence and support from research conducted on this topic. Free will is supported and determinism is not supported, which will
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.
All in all, each view about the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for it which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
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.
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
Merriam Webster defines free will as the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God. For years, philosophers have been contemplating whether or not free will exists. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents two opposing views to this debate: determinism and free will libertarianism. Determinism is the philosophical concept that every human decision and action is the result of previous states of affairs (Libet Experiments). This view suggests that there is no such thing as free will. Free will libertarianism is the opposing view which suggests that our actions are not determined. The libertarianism approach claims that we have the power to choose action A over action B or vice versa. These two approaches are contrasted with new experimental philosophy, most notably the experiments conducted by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1980's. His experiments, rooted in science, support the idea that we possess free 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. 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
Free will is the ability to act out of one's own volition; to make a choice where you could have possible chosen to do something else. Freedom is being able to act in a way that is not predetermined. There are 3 broad philosophical approaches to the concept of free will. Firstly, hard determinism, which states that we have no free will and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Secondly, we have soft determinism (compatibilism), which says that both determinism and free will are true and so we can be held morally responsible. And thirdly, libertarianism, which says that we do have free will so we can held morally responsible. Each approach using a different understanding of how free we really are and how much moral responsibility we have. There is an important relationship between free will and moral responsibility, it is generally thought that we can be held morally responsible for actions that we freely perform. I will be presenting the 3 approaches and argue for why hard determinism is true- that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.
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).