More handpicked essays just for you.
Determinism vs free will philosophy essay
Controversy between free will and determinism
Determinism vs free will philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The dilemma of determinism is intimately connected with the problem of free will and the question of moral responsibility. The theory of determinism is the theory that all events, including human actions and choices, are totally determined by the initial conditions of the universe combined with the laws of nature while the theory of indeterminism postulates that some events are not determined by preceding events, especially some human actions; in other words, indeterministic events are random or uncaused. If determinism is true, then we can never do other than we do, because our determined actions are all completely caused. If indeterminism is true, then we can never do other than what we do, because our undetermined/uncaused actions would be random. Either determinism or indeterminism is true, but both theories share a common attribute; we can never act freely because we are unable to do other than what we do. In response to this dilemma, three stances were …show more content…
By this, human action is always caused so humans never act freely. Therefore, we are not morally responsible for our actions. Motives, as described by Holbach, are any mental states which cause any particular action (e.g., wanting, desiring, caring, liking, loving, wishing, etc.). They may be either internal, from within a being, or external, from outside a being . Motivations are just as out of control as all external obstacles because you are not free to choose your own motivations. Choices are also determined by motives. Thus, the resistance of inclinations are simply because a different inclination is stronger. This entails that no one is morally responsible, and no one is deserving of praise, blame, reward, or punishment. It presents an illusion of freedom caused by our ignorance of the causes of our actions because of the complexity behind
In conclusion, do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? This is the question of many individuals and we will never know the answer. In this paper I compared and contrasted the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. I also gave strengths and weaknesses of each position. I came to a conclusion on which I find to be a correct answer.
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.
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.
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.
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
In determining the free will of a human’s nature many philosophers want to solve the dilemma of determinism. The dilemma of determinism is as follows (Rowe, p.587):
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 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.
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 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.
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
“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, 2013, p. 176).... ... middle of paper ... ...
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).
This paper will critically discuss these theories and how human beings are capable of freewill. The theory of determinism rules out the claim that human beings have free will. If fate did have something to do with certain coincidences and does exist, then does this mean we have free will? Or are our actions controlled by the theory of Fatalism?
Philosophy can be broken down into many different time periods and many different philosophers who each have beliefs on different ideas. A prevalent topic in philosophy is the idea of personal freedoms and the idea of determinism and why and how events take place. There are many different views on determinism; there is the default form determinism, hard determinism, indeterminism, and soft determinism. For determinism, three philosophers who are well know on the subject of determinism are Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach, Robert Kane, and John Stuart Mill’s as they are all different forms of determinist. Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach largely discuss the ideals or default determinism and what specifically makes an event happen. Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach also talks about the ideas of hard determinism. Robert Kane’s man focus is on how determinism differs from indeterminism and who is responsible for events taking place, Kane is also responsible