Early in history, man believed that his decisions, choices and actions were dominated by the unchangeable destiny and fate. The Ancient Greeks believed that gods were the ones who guided every step of their life. Destiny could not be avoided and should be followed. Nowadays, in the 21st century, this notion of destiny has completely faded away. When we arrive in this world, the first principle of life that we learn is that free will surrounds our being; we are autonomous human beings and therefore we are responsible for our own actions whether these are right or wrong; if wrong, we are obliged to accept the consequences that flow from our own decisions.
A human being is considered as a legal model which “accepts the philosophical postulate that individuals have free will and are able to make rational and self-interested choices… [It] accords individuals the status of autonomous moral agents who, because they have axiomatic freedom of choice, can fairly be held accountable and punishable for the rational choices… they make”
The notion of free will is inevitably connected with autonomy; and autonomy is an important value which is related to responsibility. However, one of the most important questions that is debated for years is whether we are actually free to make our own choices and accept responsibility for them or whether this is just a myth. In other words, whether someone else is indirectly having control over our lives and has the power to brainwash people to believe that they are actually autonomous.
“Free will” is often described as the capacity of a rational person to choose to act in a certain way amongst other alternatives; this is one of the greatest and most important values in a liberal society and it must...
... middle of paper ...
...n choices and be responsible for them. They are continually under the observation of a superior power which is ready to take every single opportunity to judge and hold them accountable whenever the requirements of a wrongful conduct are met. This power and the way it controls everything could be described as a ‘democratic dictatorship’, where one person – in our case, one body – imposes duties on people and forces them to obey. However, if we look more closely to the situation, if there are no rules to obey, then no legal system would exist or continue to exist. Thus, it could be argued that disciplinary control is the efficacy of law. Human beings feel that they can only be free through discipline, control and power; as such, genuine freedom becomes unbearable. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” .
“The truth is that nothing can give us what we think we want, and ordinarily think we have. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have "strong" free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way” (…).
It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is,” (86). With this in mind, everything in life is left up to fate; there is no chance at free will because every moment is already a moment and no one is capable of changing that.
The connection between free will and moral responsibility has been a heavily debated topic by early philosophers with many ancient thinkers trying to demonstrate that humans either do have ultimate control over our actions and are not made by external forces or that humans do not have control and that the trajectory of our lives is pre-determined. The most common argument and the one I will focus on in this essay suggests that free will can not be correlated with randomness and, therefore, all other possibilities are exhausted.
In this essay, Walter T. Stace writes about how the existence of free will is not a real problem, that a lot of people may not believe in free will because they do not have the correct definition of it, but if they
The simplest description of free will, as conceived by such philosophers as David Hume, is simply that free will is, “the ability to choose an action to satisfy a desire” (Hoefer). However, modern philosophers have mostly rejected this definition because it is known that nonhuman animals also act on their wants and needs but lack the intelligence to consider their actions as free choices. A more complex assessment of free will, better differentiating between humans and animals, is that the ability of humans to choose actions flows from the relationship between their animal desires and intellects. This means that people's actions are free when they have intelligently determined the best decision to make in any situation, even if their choices conflict with what they truly want, or their base animal desires. By conquering their basic instincts to make rational, informed decisions, humans have exercised free will, which animals cannot do
Should humans be autonomous or responsible? In other words, should they follow the convictions of their own hearts or surrender their ideals to another power presumed to be superior in its wisdom? This dilemma between autonomy and responsibility presents itself constantly. The struggles over abortion, euthanasia, and drug legalization are perfect examples. In each of these cases, individuals are either pushing for stronger individual rights (the freedom to make decisions regarding their own lives) or a stronger stance on the behalf of their government (to legally prevent individuals from making bad decisions).
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.
...s to avoid fate, a chain of unexpected unfortunate events are unleashed and a divine master plan is fulfilled. Man must simply act according to his own convictions concerning the matter and hope that if Fate is indeed existent, there might be an even balance between her and the freedom of choice.
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.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
Fate seems to defy humanity at every turn. A man may have his life planned out to the last second, but then some random force intervenes and he dies the second after he has completed his life plan. Some believe in fate, believing that our lives are predetermined from the moment we are born. Other people believe that everything is random, the result of some god rolling the dice in a universal poker game. Still other people believe that each and every person is in total control of his or her destiny, every step of the way. Who is to say which viewpoint is false? Every culture has a unique perception of the role of fate in our lives, and no group has the "right answer," simply a different answer. Taking into consideration the views of other cultures can help an individual refine his personal viewpoint on this inconceivable subject.
Free will and moral responsibility has always been one of the most basic and fundamental elements of philosophy. It is undeniable that there is a connection between free will and moral responsibility. Different philosophers throughout the ages have viewed this connection in both similar and differing ways. The first connection between free will and moral responsibility can be seen by Aristotle and Epictetus through their views of the voluntary and involuntary. It can then be seen in a differing view by Frankfurt in which a person is only free if they are free to have the will they want.
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.
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).
Nature is complicated. It includes many different sorts of things and one of these is human beings. Such beings exhibit one unique yet natural attribute that others things apparently do not—that is free will.