The Controversy Between Determinism and Free Will
Determinism is a controversial topic to free will with multiple theories proving, and disproving it. As printed in Collins Cobuild Learner's Dictionary, determinism is defined as “...the belief that all actions and events results from other actions, events, or situations, so people cannot in fact choose what to do.” Meaning, all life choices are predetermined from the minute we are born, to the minute we die. In contrast, “freewill is an individual taking control and responsibility for his/her actions according to his personal will” (Freewill Verses Determinism). People who believe in Free will believe life is not predetermined, and they have the freedom to act however they choose. These two
…show more content…
main ideas branch out into different types of determinism and free will to better understand the two topics. Determinism can be broken down into two major groups. Those who are hard determinist, and those who are soft determinists. Hard determinists believe that every event has a cause, therefore, no one can act freely. In the video Free Will and Determinism, the speaker states that society, upbringing, culture, and environment all play key roles as to how we feel emotionally which in turn establish our actions. Honderich also offers that, “It is not merely a chance [External situations that may occur] or random event.” Determinists believe we have unknown forces acting upon us that cause us to act in a certain way. Everything that happens to us has already been mapped out and we are just living the life we have been given. In contrast, soft determinist believe that every event has a cause, however, there are two types of types of causes. This results in the person being free (Vaughn, Lewis, and Theodore Schick, Jr.). As stated in the video Freewill and Determinism, Soft determinists believe in two types of causes: internal causes and external causes. Internal causes are caused by how a person reacts internally to a situation. For example, if a person was going out to eat and they could choose between Ihop and Olive Garden, that person has the choice to decide either one, they are not destined to eat at Olive Garden if they do not wish to do so. In addition, external causes are caused by situations happening outside of the body. If a person chose to go over the speed limit, a cop, or external force, gives the person a ticket for speeding. Both internal and external causes play hand in hand with each other, but nonetheless, they are both chosen freely. Soft determinists also believe we should be held accountable for our actions since we have the choice to choose freely. They believe free will is compatible to determinism. They think we have an equal balance of both determinism and free will. Likewise, people who believe in free will are known as libertarians. Libertarians believe we have the freedom to choose freely. There are no forces that determine how our life pans out (Free Will and Determinism). We are born without a predetermined life, and are not moving in sync to our chosen path. Libertarians also believe in the liberty of spontaneity, or the freedom to internally decide what to do because of an external situation (Free Will and Determinism). Through this, all internal and external actions are completely up to the individual. If we chose to eat chocolate everyday, we can. If we want to eat apples everyday, we can also do that because we have the freedom to choose however we want to live out our life. Responsibility of one's actions comes is of big importance when discussing determinism and free will.
Determinist believe we are not responsible for our actions, and should not be held accountable for the decisions we make. This is especially important when crimes arise and trials are held. Determinist plead innocent because their actions were predetermined, and they were forced to act in a certain way. Determinists think they should not be punished for their actions because of this. Along with being punished for not doing what is considered right, determinist think we should also not be praised for doing good since we were destined to do good. It is not fair to praise one for good behavior when someone else who does bad, was never able to change themself to do good because it was not part of their destiny. In contrast, Vir writes that people who believe in free will believe that, “every person bears moral responsibility for his or her actions.” Since free will thinkers believe we have the choice to act as we please, we must fess up when we act negatively in a situation. The power to freely choose what we do in life comes with both positive and negative consequences that we must own up to. In theory, those we do bad are held responsible and punished. Those who do good, will be treated with …show more content…
honor. Along with moral responsibility, religion is a big factor on both sides of the scale.
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
Devil. Similarly, determinist and people in favor of free will believe every event has a cause. Since determinists believe everything is predetermined, every event or situation we are dealt with, happens because it is already determined. Determinists, “believe that our [actions] must have causes--otherwise they would simply happen by chance” (Vaughn, Lewis, and Theodore Schick, Jr.). Free will believers believe every event has a cause, but it is because of the choices we make: “it is up to us what we shall choose” (Vaughn, Lewis, and Theodore Schick, Jr.). We have the power to make our own choices and every choice we make was caused by a previous choice we had made. There is much controversy between which belief is right and wrong. Determinists, like Nahmias, argue, “free will is nothing more than an illusion.” We believe we have the option to chose however we see fit, but that is not the case. For example, a person may need to use their computer to write a paper, but this person is also quite hungry, and would rather go out to dinner. The person may think they are ultimately responsible for their choice in eating over completing the paper, but in reality their internet was down and they would not have been able to write the paper anyways. This example gives the person the illusion that they chose eating over homework. However in reality, if they did chose to do their homework, they would not have been able to do so. Many studies have been created to try to finally put this disputable topic to rest. Nahmias and a few of his colleagues have been one of many researchers who are trying to solve this argument on which belief is the so called correct one. He had students from Georgia State University read a fake experiment expressing the idea that scientists are able to predict a person's actions by looking at their previous brain activity patterns. When the experiment was done, Nahmias and his colleagues concluded that 80 percent of the people believed it was possible to predict brain activity, yet 87 percent of those people believed the person would still have free will. In this experiment, it was found that most people believe in the idea of free will, rather than in the concept of determinism. To conclude, determinism and free will have been put into question for years with multiple ideas supporting the twos existence. However, at this point in time, we have no sufficient evidence to accurately claim which one is proven to be factual.
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
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.
Humans are not forced to follow a path, and can choose to take many different routes due to their unpredictability. A human can do whatever they desire, or feel like to do, with the only restraint being physically unable to do something beyond their capabilities. A human can choose to kill, die, fight, build, or do a countless number of actions in a moment without being hindered by an outside forces. Humans are the primary cause of committing an action, and decisions that can be not influenced by a third party. A determinist may view that humans are already decided by their history, or by an external force that “guides” an individual to their destiny, or fate whatever it may be. However, then it would mean that humans are not
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.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
People have free will and are responsible for their actions. More specifically I believe in compatablism, which states that determinism and freedom are compatible. I believe that in the end we all have a specific place we finish, but it is through our actions and choices that lead us there. Take the example of a highway. People choose which lane they want to be in for the time they are traveling, but in the end they are going to end up at the same exit. As long as one is doing what they want to do, one is acting freely. This is harmonious with the underlying laws of being deterministic. Actions are determined by our thoughts, desires, and beliefs. Because they are determined by things such as these, they are appropriately our own actions.
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.
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 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
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
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
The disagreement between free will and determinism is and has been argued for years. People argue about what is the difference between the two? Reading a book, free will is the power, characteristic of human beings, making free choices that are uncontrolled by any type of circumstances or by fate. Free will allows having free choice. While determinism is the total opposite.
“The determinist view of human freedom is typically based off of the scientific model of the physical universe” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 176). They believe that since events in the physical universe as well as the biological realm consistently display casual connections, and because humans are a part of the physical universe and biological realm, it is a reasonable assumption that all of our actions (and the choices that initiated the actions) are also casually determined, eliminating the possibility of free choice ( Chaffee...
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).