Is the libertarian view of free will convincing? Critically discuss with reference to relevant philosophers.
Free will is a term defining the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action, and is what we, as humans, are naturally inclined to accepting as something that we have. In other words, there is a wide consensus among philosophers that we are free agents; we choose to act or not to act according to our own independent decision-making methods. But this is a commonly debated topic, and many questions have been posed in response to the free will and determinism debate – questions such as: are we but mere puppets to a determinative force? The libertarian standpoint argues that any necessitating causal laws do not govern human actions. Thus, humans have a real notion of responsibility and freedom. However, contrasting standpoints such as determinism argue against this, claiming that everything is determined in one way or another. For example, our actions may have been predetermined by a mysterious, transcendent force (i.e God). In this paper, I will be investigating views of libertarianism in order to ascertain to what degree it is the most convincing standpoint. In doing so, I will briefly be comparing libertarianism to its opposite: determinism. Firstly, I will discuss the views of philosophical thinker Robert Kane and how he supports libertarianism through his Garden of the Forking Paths story. This will be followed with an examination of Pierre Simon de Laplace’s deterministic arguments via Newton’s cited astronomy predictions. Finally, I will turn to Jean-Paul Sartre’s libertarianism to investigate the significance of individuality and how this supports libertarianism. This examination will show the significan...
... middle of paper ...
... vast, when they should be taken down to a miniature scale; he claims that someone can use classical mechanics through knowing the position of every atom in the universe in order to know the past and future, but this seems only to account for Earth itself, rather than being able to correctly predict the lives and actions of every individual person. Overall, libertarianism is the most convincing view to free will because it allows for an ordered society (e.g, the responsibility for one’s actions being put into place and, thus, the moral code is upheld in order to avoid chaos), which is important for human survival, and this therefore reflects on how we already function as a race in almost every culture. Without the libertarian structure it would be difficult for society as we know it to survive, and so libertarianism is essential to the understanding of free will.
Roderick Chisholm defends Libertarianism, and in his essay “Human Freedom and The Self” argues that we have freedom of the will. Chisholm does not abandon the idea of causes but instead defines two types of causation. The first is transeunt causation where one event or state of affairs causes another event or state of affairs. This causation is based on a relationship between events. The second is immanent causation where an agent causes an event or state of affairs. An agent is an uncaused causer of events who is not bound by the laws of nature. This causation is based on the relationship between an agent and an event. Chisholm quotes a passage from Aristotle to demonstrate his immanent causation, “Thus, a staff moves a...
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
The view mentioned is alarming in two respects: First of all, in accordance with the way we see ourselves we are convinced that freedom is essential for man's being. Secondly, philosophers think they have excellent arguments against determinism.
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds free will as its pivotal objective. As a natural law, there are no events that happen by chance, each event is derived from a cause that led to a specific effect. The law of cause and effect is one of the most universal and most certain of all laws. Ted sider says “humans and humans alone transcend the laws of nature; they are free.” Only humans are dismissed from the effects of a cause when it comes to Free will. I believe it is flawed to assume that we are the only exception to a natural law of our universe. Something as complex as our brains, such as the universe for example, did not create itself, or the phenomenon’s that occur in it. We know that in our solar system events all derive from a specific cause and we also know that everything in our universe is made up of the same matter, and we are all connected energetically. With that being said, I think it is absurd to believe that humans transcend the most established law of
...is pretty solid. The most accessible way to argue against it is to argue against materialism. Arguing against materialism with a dualist view is only partially successful because it entails that there still is a material self that is determined which can’t be free in the libertarian sense. The only way to successfully unravel the argument is with an idealist—mind only—substance view. It you viewed humans in this way, humans would not be determined and able to have free will (even in the libertarian sense!) Even more daring would be trying to reject determinism and accept libertarian freedom using a material viewpoint. Although it is possible, it leads to quite a conflicting view. However, the view that makes the most sense is the argument. This seemingly valid argument says that humans are materials which make them determined which disallows their freedom.
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.
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
All in all, each view of 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 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.
The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions are on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by Necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event are because of some prior cause. This causation may be by an external driving force, such as a divine power, or simply a chain of events leading up to a specific moment. The problem is then further divided into those believing the two may both exist, compatibilism, or one cannot exist with the other, incompatibilism. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents an argument for the former, believing it is possible for both Free Will and Necessity to exist simultaneously. This presentation in favor of compatibilism, which he refers to as the reconciling problem, is founded on a fundamental understanding of knowledge and causation, which are supported by other empiricists such as John Locke. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing and supporting Hume’s argument for compatibilism. I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue everything is determined and Free Will is possible.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
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).
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have