Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophy essay on free will essay
Philosophy essay on free will essay
Philosophy essay on free will essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Philosophy essay on free will essay
In chapter 9 “The Debate over Free Will” in the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, they question whether or not people have free will. Throughout the chapter both of the authors gave some examples of some arguments (Determinist, Libertarian, Compatibilist, Ethics) that prove or dismiss the idea of free will. They both conclude that having free will is important but don’t determine just exactly how much free will people really have.
There were a few quotes throughout the chapter that I found to be interesting. The first one being “Our bodies and our brains are composed of atoms, and like everything else composed of atoms, they are subject to the laws of physics. And we, of course, have no control over the laws
…show more content…
I knew the laws of physics were applied to us physically but didn’t think it could affect us mentally. A quote that I agreed with was “The more we learn about the causes of human behavior, the less likely it seems that we’re free” (109). I agree with this because in the past I have learned that everyone at some point does things without even acknowledging it. Another interesting quote was “In a random, chaotic world, no one would be free, because free actions must be orderly and thoughtful. But in a world that operates according to the Laws of Nature, free action is possible. In such a world, a person’s character and desires can control what he does” (118). I thought this was interesting because it was a very ironic statement. If we lived in a world that really was “free”, meaning no laws or without an sort of organization, we wouldn’t be “free at all” compared to living in a world that has laws and is orderly. “It is sometimes suggested that the denial of free will would lead to a fatalistic attitude about the future: There would be no point in striving to change things, because the future must follow a set path” (119) and “The future depends on
In chapter ten of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author, the author discusses the possibilities of human beings living in an actually reality, or if we are just living in an illusion. Rachels guides us through concepts that try to determine wiether we are living in a world were our perception of reality is being challenged, or questioned. Rachels guides us through the topic of “Our Knowledge of the World around Us”, through the Vats and Demons, idealism, Descartes Theological Response, and direct vs. indirect realism.
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 free will to wear an underwear as a hat in public). Also, there are laws that exist that not only restricts human’s free will but also protects humans from danger. Laws exist to ensure that people are safe because some people have misused their free will as a way to behavior both morally and immorally. Isn’t that why laws were in the first place, because people does not have a control over their actions which affects others? However, one of the consequences of one breaking the law includes prison time. Due to this consequence argument between compatibilism and determinism, we no longer have free
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.
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.
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.
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
With this form of choice, we are not compelled to act by any other force; it is our moral consciousness that is free and decides. Moreover, these decisions result from the character and moral views of the person themselves, and – according to Libertarians – we are free to act on these decisions but we are also morally responsible for them. We are perceived as free agents with the capability to make choices and accept the consequences. We – as humans – have a sense of weighing up options before we make decisions. However, some people argue that causation is a fact of the universe but Libertarians believe it does not apply to the human will. Libertarians attempt to demonstrate this idea through quantum mechanics as well as the chaos theory; these theories attempt to prove that nature is indeterministic and therefore not everything is determined. If we look at chaos theory, which is the idea that there is apparently random behaviours within a deterministic system, we can see this idea of things not being determined. However, this ‘randomness’ is not due to a lack of laws, but rather due to immeasurable variations in the initial conditions affecting the outcome of an event. Furthermore, this is why chaos theory is often referred to as the butterfly effect as the beat of a butterfly’s wing in Europe could lead to a hurricane in
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.
In his book Free Will, Sam Harris not only states that, “Our wills are simply not of our own making” but additionally if it where declared as fact by the scientific community it “would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution.” (Ch.1) Harris’ contention is surprising as he himself states, “…most people find these conclusions abhorrent” (Ch.1) but does it really matter whether we actually have free will or not? I maintain that the existence of actual free will is superfluous. Most of us agree that we, at the very least, experience an illusion of freedom and therefore, for the good of our civilization, we must continue to live under this assumption precisely to avoid the result Harris describes.
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
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).
I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.
Over the years, there has been an extended running controversial debate as to whether free will truly needs an agent to encompass a definite ability of will, or whether the term “free will” is simply a term used to describe other features that individuals may possess, which leads to the controversy of whether free will really does exist. The result of free will is assumed to be human actions, that arise from rational capabilities, which as a result means that free will is depended normally on are those events, which leads us to believe that the opportunity of free action depends on the leeway of free will: to state that a person acted freely is simply to say that the individual was victorious in acting out of free choice (Van Inwagen 1983).