Do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? Humans are mindful human beings. By suggesting individuals can select different ways to respond to any situation, you are suggesting that free will is involved. However, science continues to evolve and discloses new answers on human nature. A major influence in human behavior has to do a lot with an individual’s surroundings. It is believed that a great deal of our own being is the result of an individual’s upbringing, education, culture, or ethnicity. Many of the events individuals are faced with are beyond their control.
In the following paper I am going to compare and contrast the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. I will also give strengths and weaknesses of each position. I will then come to a conclusion on which I find to be a correct answer.
Moving forward, according to John Cowburn author of Free Will, Predestination and Determinism (2008), “determinism is the philosophical view is that all humans’ actions are predetermined and that every event an individual encounters can be explained.” (p. 144)” Thus, every event that has happened in one’s life, happens as a result of previous events.
According to this theory, if determinism is correct, based any individuals past and prior experiences there is only one future that is possible for that particular individual. There are two different types of determinism: Hard determinism and Soft determinism. Both types of determinism have the same principles; that every action that happens in an individual’s life is determined on a physical level and that all life events are determined by previous life events.
Hard determinist is th...
... middle of paper ...
...ood or bad, has led me to where I am today. I have made many decisions in my life and some decisions were because I was selfish. They were made based on what was best for me at the time I made the decision. Some of my decisions were based on my future. Individuals are not able to control what has happened in their past or the laws of nature, but individuals are still able to make decisions that will result in many different outcomes.
In conclusion, do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? This is the question of many individuals and we will never know the answer. In this paper I compared and contrasted the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. I also gave strengths and weaknesses of each position. I came to a conclusion on which I find to be a correct answer.
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
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
In this essay, I will explore the concept of free will by drawing a correlation to determinism and analyse if free will is dictated for us. I will argue that the future is
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.
Neither soft determinism nor hard determinism successfully reconciles freedom and determinism. Soft determinism fails as it presents a limited type freedom, and it can be argued that the inner state of the agent is causally determined. Hard determinism presents a causally sound argument, whilst ignoring the moral bases of our society. Due to the failure of these theories to harmonize the data, the metaphysical problem of freedom and determinism persists.
All in all, each view about 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 it 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.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
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.
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).
As philosophy has progressed throughout the years, several issues have been resolved, but a major one remains the center of debate. Do humans have free will or are all of one’s actions predetermined to occur? Some believe that free will does exist, some believe that it does not, and others believe that free will and determinism are actually compatible. Determinism is a metaphysical thesis that claims that at any state of the universe as a whole, there is one and only one possible future state. Thus, any idea of alternative options for agents to choose among is impossible, whereas “Free Will” is a philosophical term for a particular sort of capacity that allows rational agents (also known as humans) to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In Galen Strawson’s “Free Will” he sets out to clarify that free will is an illusion, and therefore humans cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
People believe that we have free-will since we are capable of deciding our own fate; however, everything you have done, are doing, and will do is subject to determinism. Although philosophers have debated between free-will and determinism for centuries, it is clear to me that determinism can’t be argued against in the long run. Because people believe they have a choice in most actions in life, they fail to understand that those “actions” were influenced by prior events. Your life will be determined for you, not by fate or by your own free-will, but by the persuasion of life before your present.
Many people argue the theories free will and determinism. Though each have problems, I will argue that free will is correct. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. We are giving reason and will as humans which basically shapes who we are as people. Will is the ability to choose to act or not to act while reason is the mental capacity that informs the will of the appropriate action. Libertarian and do not believe in Determinism but in free will. This can also bring us to indeterminism which states that all human actions are not so much determined by the preceding events, condition, causes or karma as by deliberate choice of free will. Indeterminist do not have to deny that causes exists but instead