The topic of free will has been greatly debated by philosophers. It is important to understand freedom especially in terms of responsibility. Whether our actions come from our complete free will or our actions are caused by external factors is vital to our judiciary systems. In this essay, I will firstly discuss Locke’s compatibilist argument as well as his analysis that we are free if we do what we will. Secondly, Hume’s analysis that with better definitions of freedom we will all conclude that the world is necessary. Thirdly, Kant’s argument that freedom cannot exist in the empirical world, but can coexist with necessity if we consider it as in the world of things-in-themselves. Finally, I will compare then analyze their arguments of freedom …show more content…
and necessity. Locke asserts in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book II: Ideas that one has liberty if one has power over one’s thoughts and actions (pp.
74). Actions to Locke are not what happens to us, which is passive, but what we do, which is active. He also explains that volition is not a preference, but an act that the mind does to determine whether a person can or cannot do something (pp. 76). He gives the example of a tennis ball being unfree due to it lacking the ability to have thoughts, volition, and preference for movement (pp. 75). Locke states that we do not have liberty if our desires do not correspond with our powers or what we realistically can do (pp. 75). He gives the example of a man walking on a bridge that collapses; the man cannot will himself not to fall since it is outside of his power to stop falling. Therefore, the man, in that situation, is unfree (pp. 75). But the moment the man regains control over his thoughts and movements is the moment he is free (pp. 75). To Locke, there are three occasions where we do not have freedom; when things that happen to us are necessary, when our actions are out of compulsion, and in the case of restraint which is when we stop an action although it is contrary to our volition (pp. 76). We can assume that Locke would agree with the compatibility theory which states that freedom and determinism go hand in hand. As Locke explains, sometimes we are free and sometimes our choices are dependent on …show more content…
causality. Locke argues that it is mindless to ask if men have free will since liberty and will are powers only available to agents (pp.
76). The reason why Locke believes it is mindless to ask if free will exists is because we cannot ask whether a power has another power; powers are “relations not agents” (pp. 77). Firstly, he explains that will is not desire. As he has clarified, will is choosing to do an action that one knows they can do while one can desire to do things that one cannot do (pp. 79). To Locke, will is the power for volition; meaning, will is the choice we make after we compare our choices through volition (pp. 79). Locke asserts that a man is free if a man can do as he wills (pp. 77). What Locke is arguing is if we can operate the power itself, the will, then we are free since liberty is the power to do or not do what we choose and will (pp. 86). He argues that free will is incoherent because asking if free will exists is asking if freedom is free; freedom is what we will to
do. Similarly to Locke’s argument about the terms free will, Hume describes the issues surrounding the argument on free will as a misunderstanding of terminology. In Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he states that the disagreement on free will is due to us instilling different ideas to the same terms (pp. 40). Since Hume is an empiricist, he believes that we can establish similar conclusions about liberty and necessity by analyzing our experiences (pp. 40). Hume states that liberty, as we know it, can be a false sensation (pp. 47). He explains that we feel as though our actions are subject to our will and assume that our will is subject to nothing. He gives the example of proving that I have free will through raising my right arm. However, my will to raise my right arm is subject to my motive, the cause, which is to prove that I am fee (pp. 47). Hume suggests that we have problematic ideas of liberty because we assume that we are free when we see no cause to our actions. He states that there is no such thing as chance, there is always a cause and we sometimes do not see it (pp. 48). Also, he states that it is counterproductive to believe we are only free when there are no causes that influence our actions because it insinuates that we should dismiss actions that were influenced by causes. For example, if we see that a person commits a violent act due to their jealousy, should we not hold them responsible? Liberty is the “power of acting or not acting according to the determinations of the will” (pp. 48). Just because the will is subject to the cause, does not mean we are not responsible since we choose our actions based on what we infer from our experience what others’ actions will be. Hume defines necessity as “the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference from one to the other” (pp. 41). Actions are necessary because they either arise from the same motives leading to the same actions or they arise from our inferences of what we believe people are going to do. Hume believes in the laws of nature, or cause and effect, and this is what determines his stance on necessity. He explains that we would all see the connection of our actions as necessary if we understand that all our action rely on conjunction and inference (pp. 41). What he means is that all actions derive from causes or our analysis of other actions. He states that since our actions rely on complicated reasons such as our ambitions, friendships, generosity, and more, we tend to not see the causes of our actions and assume that our actions are contingent (pp. 41). But Hume asserts that we can know one’s cause of actions through knowing their motives and inclinations (pp. 42). He warns not to confuse our ignorance (due to the complicated reasons they arise from) on what triggered certain actions as proof against necessity. Hume gives an example of doctors not dismissing medicines’ benefits due to certain people being effected in negative ways because they know that different bodies and environments could alter medicines’ benefits (pp. 43). Hume believes that causes to our actions do not contradict us from being free since we are still responsible for our actions due to inference.
Furthermore, free will has been closely connected to the moral responsibility, in that one acts knowing they will be res for their own actions. There should be philosophical conditions regarding responsibility such like the alternatives that one has for action and moral significance of those alternatives. Nevertheless, moral responsibility does not exhaust the implication of free will.
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
Frankfurtean compatibilism provides a more refined model than Humean compatibilism. Humean compatibilism has denied the deterministic notion of freedom-the ability to have chosen otherwise. Hume then provides a new definition of freedom, as “a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (“Of Liberty and Necessity”, 23). In Hume’s view, as long as we act according to our desires and belief, we are exercising freedom of will and freedom of action. Frankfurt adds a further distinction within our desires, and concludes that our will is free if and only if we act on a first-order desire determined by our second-order desire. An agent’s will, defined by Frankfurt, is “the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a ...
1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
Regarding the notion of the ‘free will,’ it is clear that the issue of determinism and freedom based on a moral obligation seems probable in life. Precisely, this is because both the first part and second parts are compatible in nature. All the two constituents of the Compatibilism entail liberty and necessity the way David Hume supposed his clear claims, and therefore determinism is considered a true element. However, another philosopher may argue that freedom may exists regardless of the fact that determinism may be not true and still implies a necessity; a moral responsibility. In this regard, I strongly support Hume’s notion of Compatibilism as a plausible concept of the ‘free will,’ and further reasons that the best objection to it is
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
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not posses the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, for Kant self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
Free will is the capacity that one has in choosing one’s own course of action, basically, having free will means that one has the ability to decide what one wants to do and he is the unique source of the decision. Moreover, free will is divided in two varieties, surface freedom and ultimate freedom; the first one is the ability to make your own choices to fulfill your desires, on the other hand, the second one is the power to form your own desires and then fulfill them. Most of the philosophers agree that the surface freedom exists and that we have it, however, the big question is in the existence of ultimate freedom.
“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.
The debate regarding free will and determinism has made its appearance in history several times, and the argument only continues to grow. The topic under debate deals with “the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will” (determinism) and “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate” (free will). Hume’s argument concerning “the doctrine of liberty” and “the doctrine of necessity” mostly focuses on establishing the truth and character of necessity. He centers on the relation between the two concepts and effectively reflects what liberty means [to him].
Various views on free will have been developed since then. The three that I will mention in this essay are Libertarianism, Hard Determinism and Compatibilism. Libertarians believe each individual should look to enhance their lives through the use of free will or the freedom of choice. On the contrary, Hard determinism argues that free will is impossible. Proponents of this ideology
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.
The concept of free will has developed slowly, though ancient philosophers did address the subject when trying to reconcile intentional action with religious concerns about human and divine freedom. It wasn’t until the end of medieval times that the modern-day understanding of freedom as a completely undetermined choice between alternatives was introduced. However, it is unclear how to reconcile contemporary science that acknowledges the in...