Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Human free will philosophy essays
Free will and personal responsibility
Free will essay philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Human free will philosophy essays
Human beings always believe that what they want to do is ‘up to them,' and on this account, they take the assumption that they have free will. Perhaps that is the case, but people should investigate the situation and find a real case. Most of the intuitions may be correct, but still many of them can be incorrect. There are those who are sceptical and believe that free will is a false illusion and that it only exists in the back of people’s minds, but society should be able to distinguish feelings from beliefs in order to arrive at reality and truth.
The issue of free will has been a contentious one for a long time now between philosophers. Many have debated over the issue and ended up taking different stances. In this essay paper, I will argue the viewpoints of two great individuals in the field of philosophy; Pereboom and J. Coates whereby it is understood that they took completely different positions regarding this combative matter. An inquiry into the works of the two will enable us to answer these two imperative questions: Does denial of unregulated factors hinder the value and meaning of life? Also, is their need to defend free will rationally?
What is free will?
In his book, Thomas Hobbes argued that freedom is comprised when there are no outer impediments towards a person when engaging in what he desires to do: “Unregulated agent is that one can engage in what he wills and bear as per desire that liberty is absenteeism of outer impediments.” According to this definition, free will is the ability of a person to make a decision without being prevented or obstructed by any part. Another philosopher (Hume) defined freedom- liberty, as power of doing or of not doing, as per the d...
... middle of paper ...
...on between the two. Here, yes an agent will be free to make a decision,for example, to go outdoors or not to but the action can be limited or hindered by some factor such as a heavy downpour. Nonetheless, some argue that a free will is a prerequisite for a free action (compatibilists); depending on how the choice of the agent will turn out after selecting one of the preferred choices. On the other hand, another group argue that free will and action are incompatible (incompatibilists).
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.
“Are we free agents? Can we be responsible for what we do” (Strawson 225) This is the issue that Strawson brings to light in his essay. He begins to explain the notion of free will and responsibility in a compatibilist’s view. They believe that free will and determinism are compatible
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.
Frankfurt, H.G., (2003). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. In G. Watson, ed. Free Will, 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, pp.322-336.
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.
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.
God has given us as human beings free will. Although if we make choices based on our own free will we must be willing to take the responsibility for the effects that our decisions have on ourselves, on the people around us, and on society itself. Freedom, I believe, is the way in which people live or behave without others annoying or interfering in his or her affairs. People should benefit from freedom, equality and justice. Absolute freedom is sometimes very dangerous and may destroy the basic principles of the society. A lot of people believe that freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want.
There are a lot of different things that come to mind when somebody thinks of the phrase Free Will, and there are some people who think that free will does not exists and that everything is already decided for you, but there are also people who believe in it and think that you are free to do as you please. An example that explains the problem that people have with free will is the essay by Walter T. Stace called “Is Determinism Inconsistent with Free Will?”, where Stace discusses why people, especially philosophers, think that free will does not exist.
As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsible for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualifies as a human act. The Libertarian view consists of one’s actions not being determined; however, have free will, which is a precondition for moral responsibility. Basically put, human acts are not determined by precedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism.
Kane, Robert. "Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Safer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 425-437. Print.
Hobbes may have been the first to present an unequivocally negative concept of freedom. Hobbes defined liberty as the absence of external impediments to motion, and as 'a silence of the laws.’ However, the classic formulation of the doctrine may be found in Berlin’s ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’. Berlin defined negative freedom as ‘an area within which a man can act unobstructed by others.’ In Berlins words ‘Liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: ‘What is the area in which the subject – a person or groups of persons – should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be?’ . For Berlin, the answer to this question is that there should be a private zone that is marked out or set aside, and in which a person can exercise personal liberty and individual autonomy. The individual is to be left alone to exercise his own desires and choices without external coercion. Thus, in Berlin’s conception, freedom is a property of individuals and consists of a realm of unimpeded action. A person is free to the extent that he is able to do things as he wishes – speak, worship, travel, marry – without these activities being blocked by other people. For Berlin, an individual is unfree if he ‘is prevented by others from doing what he would otherwise do.’
Free will can be defined as: “The right, given to humans by God, to make their own decisions.” A mans free will cannot be destroyed by any power other than God. Humans can always exercise their free will when making decisions. However, when their decisions come in conflict with the laws set by a higher power, they might face consequences based on how they choose to use their free will. The more restrictions imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their ability to make decisions become. The extent to which someone may exercise their free will can be defined as their “freedom.” Therefore, the more laws imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their freedom. Although no power, save God, can destroy free will, they can limit and even destroy someones freedom. In the essay Shooting an Elephant George Orwell argues that, “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell, 704). Free will is indestructible; an example of Orwell’s destruction of freedom but preservation of free will is given in his essay. In Antigone an example of how even though higher powers can limit your decisions they cannot stop you from exercising your free will.
This paper contributes to the free will debate by defending the position of compatibilism as the most valid solution. The debate of the free will of humans relates to the seeming incompatibility between determinism and human free will. Compatibilism is the idea that determinism is compatible and consistent with free will. This debate ties into the topics of moral responsibility, and I will defend my argument that freedom and moral responsibility are compatible even with determinism. My main argument consists of the fact that “free will” means that a human being could have selected another option if they wished to do so, meaning they could have responsibility for their actions even if determinism is 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 the debate regarding liberty (i.e. free-will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism), Hume places himself firmly in the compatibilist camp by arguing that both notions can be reconciled. Though some of the arguments he presents in the Enquiry are unconvincing, Hume nonetheless still contributes to compatibilism by defining free-will and determinism in such a way as to avoid the logic of the incompatibilist position.
I, thankfully, am not one of those people. That is why in this paper I will argue that free will co-exists with determinism and is not completely eliminated by it. I will first examine the viewpoints of several prominent philosophers and their stance on free will and determinism. I will then move into my view on free will and the definition that I assign the word. Lastly, I will argue against the opponents of my viewpoint.