The Freewill Dilemma
Free will is the capacity of an individual to “act freely”, how what they do is/ isn’t controlled by any other power, as well as the notion that “every event has a cause” (Vaughn Pg. 333). While rationalizing about this idea, freewill presents a variety of different theories to explain why or why not an individual has the ability to change the outcome.
Different views on Freewill
There are three different categories of theories: Libertarianism, Determinism and Compatibilism (Vaughn Pgs. 333- 336.) Libertarianism states that “some actions are free, for they are caused, or controlled, by the person, or agent (Vaughn, Pg. 336.) Contrary to this belief, determinism states the opposite. Determinism states “free will doesn’t
…show more content…
The first being “Hard Determinism.” This view discounts the idea of free will entirely, stating that free will “doesn’t exist” and “that no one acts freely” (Vaughn Pg. 334.) Those who believe in Hard Determinism believe in and accept the doctrine of incompatibilism (Vaughn Pg. 334), which states that determinism and Libertarianism are not compatible with each other. The other category of determinism is indeterminism. Indeterminism lends the idea that “Not every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature” (Vaughn Pg. 335). In laymen’s terms if this idea of free will is true, then some things happen by chance which would “give [] room for free will” (Vaughn Pg. 335). counterarguments for this type of determinism are that this statement alone cannot due to the fact that “If what we do happens by chance […] nothing would be under our control” (Vaughn Pg. 335). The last category of determinism is compatibilism or “soft determinism” (Vaughn Pg. 335). This theory attempts to combine determinism and libertarianism. It states that “although determinism is true, […] actions can still be free” (Vaughn Pg. …show more content…
(Vaughn Pg. 334). Determinism’s main argument is the idea that “nothing happens without a cause”. This defense is supported by philosopher Paul Ree. Ree Uses the example of a donkey standing between identical hay piles the same distance. (Ree Pgs.1-2). Although the donkey will appear to make a choice about which pile it picks, in reality, simply choosing one of them because of an unseen cause. Ree states that this is called “The Law of Causality” and mankind is subjected to it the same as the donkey (Ree pg.1). The Law of Causality makes the idea of free will seem as if “[Mankind] [is] in the grip [] of illusion” (Vaughn
There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
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.
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 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.
Firstly, the determinist argue that “everything we do is cause by forces over which we have no control (James & Stuart Rachels 110). The free will this theory speaks of is most likely on the biological level, as there are many natural events that occur that people have no control over. For example, the act of cellular reproduction, this
In the early 1900s, many Canadian women were treated with no respect, no rights and were treated as outcasts. Furthermore, these women lived with no equality and were treated as if they had no value. Nevertheless, the lives of Canadian women improved substantially many years later and now, Canadian women are treated with complete fairness all over the country. These improvements that are seen today have taken numerous years to come to fruition, however, many of these essential improvements occurred during the World War II time period. As the men left to fight in the War, a new opening had been created for women all throughout Canada and this eventually led to the numerous improvements. Therefore, the lives of Canadian women improved during the World War II time period as they were allowed to partake in military activities, got better jobs and were given more rights and more respect throughout Canada.
Hard determinist view free will as incompatible with determinism, and therefore it does not exist. These philosophers, however, define free will as making decision in a random, uncaused way. B.F. Skinner would be an example of a hard determinist, where he simply does not accept the existence of freedom of will. David Hume, a 17th century philosopher, helped bring about soft determinism. He was the first to argue that maybe the root of the free will problem lied in the definition of free will. Instead of humans making decision in uncaused ways, maybe being free is doing what you want to do. By predicting what you want to do; to make you decision based on aspirations or desires, enables the concept of free will to work in the context of the determinist theory. Those who choose to accept both our choices being determined by outside factors, and accept that humans have the ability to make their own decisions based on these pressures, believe in the theory of compatibilism. Compatibilists, like A.J Ayer and Susan Wolf, define and defend their acceptance of both determinism and the existence of free will. Ayer finds two issues with “hard” compatibilism. He doubts that every event has a direct cause, which is at the core of determinism. While scientists have laws and theories that determine how actions are caused, like gravity and motion, there are still phenomena that science cannot explain their causes.
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
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 precedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism. An example of Libertarianism is: right now, one can either stop reading this essay or can continue to read this article. Under this claim, the fact that one can choose between either is not determined one way or the other.
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.
Free will is the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Human beings are mindful beings. By proposing that people can choose diverse ways to answer to a condition, it specifies the involvement of free will. On the other hand, as science remains to uncover new conclusions on human nature, it is shown that a huge deal of our own existence is the outcome of our background, education or organic nature, factors that are away from our control. A lot of our choices and experiences in life have been determined already. The problem between determinism and free will is that there are solid opinions that back up both sides. Noticeable philosophers have claimed these topics passionately. From observing their opinions, it is obvious that free will is incomplete and that inside the main source of human selections, are determined elements.
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
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).