Essay On Determinism Vs Free Will

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

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 question of our freedom is one that many people take for granted. However, if we consider it more closely it can be questioned. The thesis of determinism is the view that every event or happening has a cause, and that causes guarantee their effects. Therefore given a cause, the event must occur and couldn’t occur in any other way than it did. Whereas, the thesis of freewill is the view that as human beings, regardless of a cause, we could have acted or willed to act differently than we did. Determinism therefore, states that the future is something that is fixed and events can only occur in one way, while freewill leaves the future open. Obviously a huge problem arises between these two theses. They cannot both be true

The laws of nature as well as past and present states of the world motivate our actions, whether or not we are able to recognize the complex causes for the decisions we make. Every choice is the result of factors outside of our control. “Free will” can only exist if a person truly has the choice between multiple possible options; however, as hard determinists claim, every choice is fixed to only one possible outcome based on any number of existing outside factors. While libertarians believe in the concept of free will and choices based entirely on personal deliberation, compatibilists assert that the state of the world does potentially offer multiple outcomes, and so free will is possible alongside determinism. Peter van Inwagen, in his article, “The Powers of Rational Being: Freedom of the Will” states that the belief in free will is necessary for survival to avoid chronic indecisiveness, although he confuses the absence of free will for the absence of action, and simply makes an unconvincing case for duping oneself into believing in free will. While believing in the concept of free will necessarily ignores the influence of unchanging outside motivators, hard determinism provides a logical position on how certain results come to be without contradicting our ability to choose.

Determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism are three significantly different views on where unaccountability might stop and where free will and moral responsibility begin. Determinism is the strict opinion that every action and decision is the cause of an event, genetics or the environment prior to that action. Quite the opposite is libertarianism, which happens to be the genuine belief in free will as well as the denial of universal causation. Finally, deep self-compatibilism meshes both of these stand points together and introduces the idea that one’s action can be free if it stems purely out of personal, authentic desire. Since all three judgments have a backbone of convincing

The issue of whether freewill is realistic or determinism has long been at the heart of the debate. Free will is fundamentally and totally compatible with determinism (Schooler & Vohs, 2008; Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Free will refers to the power of acting or not acting according to the determination of the will of the individual (Schooler & Vohs, 2008). In contrast, determinism states that, due to the laws of cause and effect, all future events are predetermined, including human decisions, and that there is no such thing as free will (Baumeister & Monroe, 2014). In touching on the issue historically, there has been the philosophical and psychological threads densely tangled for unsolid reasons for the existence of free will and determinism leaving many possible sources. Human free will is an example many philosophers use as an example of a greater good. They say free will is what makes us human. Over centuries, for those who placed more weight on the existence of free will, the philosophical or religious understanding of free will has been lightened the fatigue of the road with detecting the locus of control in human behaviour (Carey & Paulhus, 2013). One of the influential behaviour psychologists, Skinner, concurred with Descartes that humans make choices, but critically stated those choices are controlled by outside influences. This notion of determinism is legitimate to the physical aspects of the world even though it is not to humanistic behaviour. (Begelman, 1978) This

I cannot say exactly whether I believe that free will exists or not, but I do know that there are multiple arguments that support it and deny it. We must first determine what free will is before we can say that we are free, even in our deterministic world. Free will exists when a being, if given all other causal factors in the universe, it is able to choose more than one thing. Although, we have many uses for the word ‘freedom’, but the kind of freedom in this case would apply to someone even if they had a gun forcedly pointed to their head. Causal determination allows some freedom of the mind but not freedom from violence. Throughout this paper we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Hard Determinism and Libertarianism,

The concept of free will is certainly a reassuring proposition, yet despite it being comforting to believe that humans have the ability to act outside of external influences, the evidence suggests otherwise. Determinism, the principle that all events are determined by causes that are independent of one’s will, is a valid position supported by a myriad of information in various fields of study. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, and demonstrates that our choices in life are determined by our heredity, environment, and the fact that all things have a cause; therefore, we cannot be held responsible for our decisions, and we cannot justify punishing people for something they cannot control.

One of the biggest debate topics that has philosophers and scientists at each other’s throats: Free will versus determinism. Scientist believe they have proven that free will is a mere illusion. Philosophers think other wise. With many experiments and arguments included, both have a different view about this topic. One who believes that all thing, including human behavior, are already determined are people who believe in determinism. Others who believe in free will, believe that our actions are caused by free will and are not controlled. Believing in free will means that people’s actions are not determined but also that they have a limited amount of control over themselves. These arguments are followed by questions, experiments, and very precise data. With this being said, is it possible for our own thoughts and behavior to be controlled or are our actions a result of free will?

I began the discussion by taking the determinist point of view and stated that human behavior can be determined by the laws of nature if we have access to all relevant variables. If we were to know someone's genetic make-up, the environment in which they are raised, the family they are raised by, etc., we can make valid conjectures about their behavior. For instance, if we know that a child has a very active limbic system (which is associated with emotion and aggression), is raised in a very poor and stressful environment and does not receive much affection from the parents, it is valid to project that such a child will behave violently and criminally in its adolescent and adult life. In fact, such

Throughout society, one would be hard pressed to find an individual that did not believe in the concept of freedom. Free will has become a value so ingrained in civilization that most trust in it implicitly without question and the idea of being free is often romanticized in literature, politics, religion, and media…However, there is a juxtaposing viewpoint that is also widely recognized. Determinism is generally accepted as the opposite of free will in that individuals are not free agents in their own life and decisions and behavior is already planned out for them. Two paths that generally cannot mutually exist in the world; which one is right? Upon examining the research, the vote seems to fall in favor of free will.

Throughout time humanity has always strived to understand the meaning of life. Fate does not determine a man, a man determines his own fate. A man determines his own fate by making the right decisions, this determines what environment or circumstance he places himself into. In other words, we can use the Hawaiian term holo, which means to make choices or decisions. . In an analogy of determinism, God plays the role of the producer, I have the free will to write my life and direct it, I determine the actors and scenery. Determinism only determines so much in an individual's life, we then take hold our own fate through free will.

In philosophy, there are two ideas called “Free will” and “Determinism.” According to Google, Free will is “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.” This basically means that you decide what you do, how you act, and what you want to do in the future.

On the other hand, free will is the “ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition”, [1] or to impute to effort whilst being morally responsible for those actions.

Free will – a concept that always brings forth the question, “Does free will exist?” There are various arguments that come from both sides of the discussion, those in favor of free will based on religious text, and those that can argue that free will is a concept and ideal created to give humans the illusion that they have the ability to choose what they can do in life.The question is, do we really have the ability to choose what we please or do our actions come forth from the past events? In this case, compatibilist would question both but accept them at the same time. This paper will present both sides for and against free will and also argue how determinism is compatible with freedom.