Analysis Of The Philosophical Concepts Of Determinism And Free Will

In the Philosophy, Determinism has many different categories. Actually according to the textbook, the Determinism is the view that every event, including human actions, are brought about by previous events in accordance with the natural laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion. Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza does not deny that people’s wishes and desires will lead to the soul, and he said, "but neglected one important

There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are also others who believe we are servants of cosmic destiny, and that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment. The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes, and everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Therefore, according to this statement, man is not free.

Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.

Determinism is the doctrine, that every event, as well as human actions is determined by causes that are independent to the will. From determinism, two opposing views were identified. The incompatibilists view that determinism implies no free will, or the compatibilists view that determinism still allows for free will. The incompatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken determinism as use of a scapegoat, identifying determinism to infer that human beings are unable to have any free will, thus no moral responsibility for taken actions. Whilst the compatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken a softer view of determinism, holding the view that an agents actions are pre-determined, although the agent is still to be held morally responsible for the agent’s voluntary actions. Determinism, as argued for the compatibilists, allows for an agent to hold free will and share equal responsibility for chosen actions.

The third key term is compatibilism. Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the belief that free will and determinism can coexist. More specifically, while external forces, such as upbringing, and internal forces, such as personal desires, have influence on one’s actions, one still has the ability to make the choice (holding that they are not being physically forced to do something). For example, Jane is invited to a party. Her parents taught her that drinking has many negative repercussions but on the other hand, Jane has been overwhelmed and kind of wants to go out. Jane chooses to not attend the party. According to compatibilism, while Jane’s decision was influenced by her upbringing and by her personal desire, she still ultimately had the freedom of choice and chose to not go.

It has been debated over centuries whether us humans have control over our destiny, and if we are really able to decide on our own. The controversy between free will and determinism has been argued about for years. If we look into a dictionary, free will is define as the power given to human beings to be able to make free choices that is unconstrained by external circumstances or a force such as fate or divine intervention. Determinism is defined as a philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inescapable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will. Determinism states that humans have no free will to choose what they wish. Due to this fact, contemporary philosophers cannot agree whether free will does exist, let alone it be a divine influence.

In part five of the textbook, Philosophy: The Quest For the Truth, the concept of freedom of the will and determinism is discussed in great lengths. The argument of free will and determinism between psychologists and philosophers has existed for centuries. People who are determined assume that outside, as well as internal forces, determine behavior. In addition to this they understand that although this is true in their eyes, people are free to choose their own behavior. According to the textbook, Philosophers assume that people seem to accept determinism, which is defined as being, “the view that events are determined or necessitated by preceding physical causes and the laws of nature (394)”. This being valid brings up many questions that

Carl Hoefer, the author of “Causal Determinism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that the universal definition of determinism is “The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.” (Hoefer, 2016) This definition is based on the concept that everything in the world can be explained and has a reason for existing at a certain time or place (Hoefer, 2016). Thomas Hobbes, one of the most renowned english philosophers who lived from 1588 to 1679, who many believe stated the most universal definition of free will as “A free agent is he that can do as he will, and forbear as he will, and that liberty is the absence of external impediments.” (Timpe, 2013) Kevin Timpe interpreted this definition as the ability to select a course of action being that the individual is free and not being restricted by an external force (Chains, Walls, Bars, etc)(Timpe, 2013). There are so many variants of these definitions and are always subject to change and

According to Greene and Cohen’s article, the problem of free will pertains to the conflicting definitions of free will and determinism. Free will can be defined as the freedom to decide one’s next state; having free will means that one’s choices do not depend on past events. Oppositely, determinism states that every condition in the present depends on past events and all conditions are entirely based on physical laws. Determinism thus claims that there is only one predetermined way a given agent will act. Based on the definitions of free will and determinism, it appears that free will and determinism cannot both be right. If one’s choices are independent of past events, then physical laws and previous conditions do not determine those choices. If the opposite is true, then free will cannot exist. For most people, aspects of both free will and determinism seem correct even though it cannot be so. This is the problem of free will.

To be a soft determinist or a compatibilist, there are certain conditions that must be followed. One is the belief in the free will, another is the belief in determinism-or that actions and thoughts have causes, and the final is that both free will and determinism can go together. (Hume 113-114). This view still allows for people to be morally responsible for their actions while suggesting that it is possible that there where underlying means to the thought of that action. This theory on free will is believable because it allows for both internal and external factors to influence decisions. This shows that all choices have both a mental component and a physical component. The internal or mental component is how a person believes that he can directly influence or change a situation. The physical or external component is how the outside environment or previous decisions create the choice that a person has to make.

Everything happens for a reason. This is a belief accepted by many humans all over the world and is the basis behind decision-making. However, many humans also believe that actions in life are pre-determined by causes external from the will, this belief is the idea behind determinism. Philosopher David Hume believes that both free will and determinism can co-exist even though the two concepts seem to contradict each other. I believe that Hume is correct to believe that free will and determinism can co-exist because determinism explains the outcome of a humans actions and free will explains the motives behind a humans actions.

In order to weigh that the idea of free will is compatible with Determinism, it is first required to evaluate the other possibilities and beliefs of free will and examine whether we in fact, posses free will. Free will has been a topic discussed for over two millennia philosophers by the names of Rene Descartes, David Hume and many others. Throughout this essay I will argue the act of free will and it 's compatibility towards Determinism, and briefly reviewing the counter arguments from a libertarian perspective, proceeding on by discussing my beliefs on why I believe free will is compatible with Determinism. I will also be providing supporting arguments by implementing renowned philosophers who share similar beliefs.

Partly due to this being a critical part of everyone’s lives and also partly because determining if there is free will helps to address if a person is responsible for their actions, especially when they go against what is perceived as morally correct by society. The three theories about free will handle this issue in different ways. The first to be addressed will be the determinist. The determinist does not believe that there is free will, due to the belief that every action comes about due to a previous cause and cannot come about for no reason (Rachels 97). This would go against what is known about the world through our understanding of science. Therefore, this theory asserts that since a person cannot control the previous causes that would bring about their current action, there must not be free will. This has led some of its proponents to argue that man is not accountable to his actions, as he cannot control the circumstances that have led to an immoral action. One of these proponents, B.D. Skinner, believed that people’s choices were based on the conditioning they had been subjected to in their lives, and that this conditioning should also be to blame for the actions of people. He proposed that, since the actions had been determined by the conditioning of the person, that free will is not possible and punishment should be based on new conditioning

This idea presents a difficult problem for the concept of free will: how can we make free choices if all our actions are determined by the facts of the past and the laws of nature?  A related but distinct question is: how can we be held morally responsible for our actions if we have no free will?

Even with all of the technology and knowledge have available to us today, we are still unable to answer certain questions that have puzzled human beings for centuries. Determinism versus free-will is one of the great questions that, at this point in time, cannot be proved or disproved. There is much discussion regarding the issue of free-will versus determinism, and both present very important supplemental questions that both positions must face. Although a definitive answer cannot be given or proved yet, many disciplines make their own attempt to provide factual or subjective information to support both sides. Experts in philosophy, physics, psychology, theology, etc. all attempt to answer this universal question, whether it is through