The fact that the reader is reading this paper must mean they chose to do so, right? Or was this all predetermined based on their past experiences? Human beings want to believe that they are in control of their lives, and have the ability to decide between choices. To be in control is what everyone wants, because it makes them feel safe, at ease; but this may not be the case. According to the article “The Problem of Free Will”, to believe in free will is to believe that the future is more open rather than determined, and that the agent has the power to shape it (4). Then there are determinists, who think that this argument is unpersuasive because of the insufficient evidence. The article features a scenario in which a girl has had arachnophobia her whole life. …show more content…
She one day encounters a spider, and flees the scene. A free will believer would say that she had the choice to stay or leave, and she chose to leave. On the other hand, a determinist would say that based on her rational spider fear, she had no other choice but to run.
Another case would be the Robert Harris article by Miles Corwin, that analyzes the murder of two teen boys. In this case, it was discovered that Robert Harris and his brother Daniel tried to rob a bank using the teen’s car. Robert promised he wouldn't kill them and they had no other choice to believe him. As they walked away, he shot one of them. The other then ran, but was shot and killed. Robert then came back and killed the almost lifeless boy. Devastating enough, he then proceeded to eat the lunch the two left behind, 15 minutes following the crime. Normally, someone would say that what he did should never be forgiven because he chose to kill them, but after learning about his childhood, one would argue otherwise. Based on the terrible events that occurred throughout his life, for example the hatred and the multiple assaults, that person would then think about the fact that maybe it wasn’t his fault; that maybe he didn’t have control over his impulses. No matter how many examples are given, the debate never ceases and the real question pops up. Is what the person believes fact, or
fiction? The fact that free will believers exist is preposterous because of their lack of evidence and shallow statements. These alone are not enough to prove free will to be true, and therefore must mean that determinism is real. Say that a young boy was playing baseball and he shattered his neighbor's window. A free will believer would say that he chosen to destroy the window because he had the option to relocate. A determinist, however, would say that he had no alternative, but to stay there. His life goes like this: his parents had been stern and uncompromising his whole life, and playing baseball was his only dream. He had to study rigorously all day and had only an hour each weekend to practice. His parents had also advised him to stay nearby. If he ever dared to break that rule, they would take his bat away, crushing his elusive dream. The poor kid had no choice but to stay in that area, and since he barely had practice, he wasn’t able to control his arm very well, therefore making this point in his life, determined. There is no way to argue that this was free will, because he had no choice whatsoever, and if a free will believer tries to argue, then next time, bring a believable claim to the table.
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.
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
The Web. 16 April 2014. Monmaney, Terence. A.S.A. & Co. Free will, or thought control?
3. Discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James on free will and 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.
Harry Frankfurt is a refined and well known philosopher who has considered the issue of freedom through thought. Or in other words the debate on free will. Frankfurt has been claimed and is well known for being considered a traditional compatibilist. Frankfurt believes that there is a difference between freedom of an action chosen by the person and the freedom to commit the action through self will. Frankfurt explains this using many examples. In Frankfurt’s “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person” he discusses the difference between a person and an animal. In Frankfurt’s opinion animals are only capable of first order desires and this sets them apart from people who are capable of second order desires (Frankfurt,1) . In Frankfurt’s
Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That we do not have free will, our choices shapes up by the world we born in to. Some others believe that we born as a blank paper we could shape by the occasions or choices that we make freely. Marry Midgley on her article “Freedom and Heredity” defends that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will. Those limitations lead us to use free will and make choices freely. She continues without our limitations we do not need to use free will. Free will needs to be used according to our needs but when mentioning need not as our moral need as our needs to what could we bring up with our capacities. We need to use our free will without stereotypes. Furthermore free will should be shaped by the choice that would lead us good consequences.
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, 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 skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches of free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will.
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.
Do humans have free will? Do we have the ability to freely choose what we do? This question is dealt with in philosopher Thomas Nagel’s What Does it All Mean?. He lays out a hypothetical situation in which you have the choice of eating a peach or a chocolate cake. You choose the cake, but regret doing so one day later, telling yourself, “I wish I hadn’t eaten that chocolate cake. I could have had a peach instead”. The phrase “I could have had a peach instead” is of the form “I could have chosen otherwise”, and this phrase is the root of the free will problem. What does it mean when you could have chosen otherwise? Is this even a true statement? Could you have actually freely chosen otherwise? Nagel presents four answers to these questions, but finds a problem in each of them. In this paper, his solutions of determinism, compatibilism, and incompatibilism will be discussed, followed by my own analysis using the idea of chance and why I believe that there can be progress on the free will problem without a satisfactory understanding of the phrase.
2. Reamer, Frederic G. “The Free Will-Determinism Debate and Social Work.” Social Service Review, vol. 57, no. 4, 1983, pp. 626–644. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30011687.
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).
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.