Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is more powerful, fate or free will
What is more powerful, fate or free will
Fate destiny and free will
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is more powerful, fate or free will
Sara Ratliff
LAL101
4 October 2017
Fate or Free Will Are our lives only a set out plan controlled by fate? Do our choices and our actions determine our futures? What is the defining factors that affect the course of our existence on Earth? These are all questions that have afflicted society for centuries. As actor William Shatner once said, “The conundrum of free will and destiny has always kept me dangling.” Previously, this debate has been present mainly in the theological world between different religious denominations. However, recently this examination has moved to the secular universe. I am of the belief that we can live our lives with free will over our actions because of my ideas on humanity, my views on life, my understanding of reason, and my belief that there is a Creator.
…show more content…
Yes, very much so. Often, one will hear the example of our fight or flight instincts or of when a person places their hand on oven burner and automatically removes their hand without conscious thought because of a reaction from our nervous systems. Every brain is hardwired with basic survival instinct such as these, however that does not take away free will. Critics of free will try to explain it away with science, saying that our actions result only from the movement of atoms and molecules within our bodies. They talk of the “Illusion of free will”, that as human beings, we have no say in our decisions (Harris). In my opinion that reduces humanity into what can only be described as a series of programmable
“Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Dictionary.com). The novel Slaughterhouse five portrays the idea of not having free will. The award winning author, Kurt Vonnegut, tells
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
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.
Free will ultimately brought about the death of Romeo and Juliet. Obviously Juliet and Romeo’s ending was predetermined for them because it is after all a play. Which in some ways invalidates the debate of whether or not they had free will. However with a willing suspension of reality we can analyze the events that take place had this been a real situation. The events leading up to Romeo and Juliet’s untimely death are at best circumstantial, and each one is individually preventable. Some of the events could be considered fate on the premise of a chain reaction, however for my purposes I will say that had they not made the choice that had started the chain reaction it would not have happened. Therefore, it is still based upon free will.
The French Revolution was a time when many people sacrificed their lives for their beliefs. As the French Revolution moved on, more people joined the movement and risked their lives. A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is set during this time. Many people who sacrificed their lives for the Revolution felt like it was their fate to do this. This idea of fate is described many times in Dickens’ novel to magnify the story. The theme of fate is prevalent in the novel through the lives of many characters. This theme is used to show how a person is unable to escape their fate because it is already decided. The metaphors and symbols in the novel are greatly used to contribute to the theme of fate through the symbols of knitting, the fountain and water, and the wine.
The question of whether there is free choice or whether we are subject to ordinary causality raises the issue of determinism in human conduct. Are we ultimately “determined” by our biology, heredity, environment, beliefs, and other conditioning factors, or whether we have “free will” to override any such determination? I agree with Blatchford and the theory that there is a cause for every wish and every choice a man acts from. I believe we are free to choose as heredity and environment cause us to choose.
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
Every morning has its routine: alarm goes off, roll out of bed, shower, makeup, brush teeth, and get to class. But do these things happen because that’s what we choose our routine to be? Are we choosing to do these things on our own accord, or are they already predetermined? What is “freewill,” and does it truly exist? These are the questions that philosophers have delved into for centuries, all coming up with different ideas and limitations of “freewill.” AJ Ayer’s concept of compatibilism conflicts with d’Holbach’s idea of hard determinism, and the comparison makes for an interesting debate.
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.
The first theme is Fate Vs. Freewill. The definition of fate is defined to be, “The development of events beyond a person’s control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power”(Google Search). Freewill can be defined as, “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion”(Google Search). What does this theme really have to do with the story line?
About 2 weeks ago my thoughts towards the reality of free will ceased to exist. Everything that I had previously thought did not mean a thing; I was given a new perspective that grasped me almost instantaneously. Robert Blatchford, author of "The delusion of Free Will" provided me with a new perspective that has taken over my thinking on free will. Blatchford states, "the will is not free, and that it is ruled by heredity and environment." All it took, were those words, ...
Ultimately, the free will problem will remain a highly debated subject due to its complicated nature. The solutions of determinism, compatibilism, and incompatibilism posed by Nagel in addition to my argument dealing with chance events are merely possibilities on how to dissect the phrase, “I could have chosen otherwise”. This concept is rooted in the subject of philosophy, since there is often no right answer. Philosophy allows us to express our opinions and come up with conclusions we believe to be true. Whether humans have free will or not will remain a mystery that we do our best in solving.
In summary, the idea of self-reliance will continue to bewilder the minds of our current and future generations. In fact, this is due to the lack of a definite answer to the question. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that whether an individual be a believer or non-believer in having control of their destiny, there are forces or uncontrollable factors in life that have the ability to control a minute percentage of one’s destiny.
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).
Free Will Analyzing our individual free will can be very intriguing and can almost reach the point of being paradoxical. Ultimately, free will determines the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. Obviously, if outside forces determine our choices, we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if our choices are made with total freedom than certainly we must claim responsibility for our choices and actions. The readings I chose offered two quite opposite theories on individual human freedom, determinism vs. existentialism.