Chapter Summary: The Case Against 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.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

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.

Before we can discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James we have to know the definitions of the items the issue is about. Free will according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "The power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill act is a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law of causality." So according to this statement freewill is the ability for humans to make

Exposition: In Galen Strawson’s essay “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,” he presents the Basic Argument and argues it proves we cannot be held truly morally responsible for our actions, which is an invaluable argument in the free will problem. The Basic Argument is seen as an infallible argument. It claims that people are who they are based on the environment that they’ve been born. On the seventh page of the essay, Strawson breaks the ten part argument into five simplified premises. First, it is undisputable that

In Susan Wolf’s work of “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, she brings up the responsibility of people in the world based on free will. Could you really make a good decision if you were under the influence? How about if you were not mature enough to know the outcome of your decision? These things makes you question if whether or not we are ever really in control of our options and our ability to choose any option as we please. Wolf seems to think that there is a deeper, underlying force that seems to be the one really choosing for us.

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

One major argument of the the philosopher Friedrich Nietzshe against free will it is self contradicting. He says “If human actions result from choices, which in turn emanate from the will, and, supposing that the will is determined by human nature, human actions are not caused by the agent as such, but rather are conditioned by the way the agent is” (Grillaert 1). Everything has a cause. When we make a choice, we do so for a reason. If we freely choose one action instead of another then the causes of our choice are the determining factors.

Pinker brings to rise the notion of free will and the ability of biology to become the excuse to become a criminal and become unaccountable just based on biological data. Pinker’s chapter brings the notion of free will into light, whether free will is a construct of individuals who reject the genetic predisposition argument and want to prove control on our actions. Elliot Ludvig explains the role that behaviorists play in terms of refuting the role of biology in our actions, in which if a behavior needs to be modified, then the only variable that can be manipulated is the environmental

Arguments pro et contra the possibility of free will inevitably attempt to answer the question on whether or not moral responsibility is possible. In “Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” philosopher Galen Strawson attempts to show proof that, not only is moral responsibility impossible, but it necessarily follows, whether or not determinism turns out to be true or false. It is my contention that Strawson's argument is correct, and it is impossible for us to be responsible for our actions. As a result, it is equally impossible to be morally responsible for those same actions. The consequence is simple; free will is an illusion. We hang tight to

The concept of free will has been a point of contention among philosophers who study metaphysics. Regarding this concept of free will, three theories have arisen: hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Hard determinism states that all human actions have been predetermined, whereas libertarians state that all human actions are free, and compatibilism states that some human actions are free, though they are all casually determined (Stewart et al., 2013, p. 154). Each of these three theories have a different definition of freedom, where hard determinism and libertarianism define freedom as that the person was not casually determined and could have chosen the alternative to his action, and compatibilists define freedom as a person’s ability to perform action through his desires, feelings, and emotions (Stewart et al., 2013, p. 154). Perhaps one of the greatest arguments for libertarianism involves the theory of causality.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

An individual with “Free Will” is capable of making vital decisions and choices in life with own free consent. The individual chooses these decisions without any outside influence from a set of “alternative possibilities.” The idea of “free will” imposes a certain kind of power on an individual to make decisions of which he or she is morally responsible. This implies that “free will” would include a range of aspects such as originality, moral value, and self-governance. However, in life, individuals may not be free in making decisions. The aspect of freedom could entail remarkably a high status action and achievement in an individual’s life whose attainment could be close to impossibility. Often, people make

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.

Many worry that if we accept that humans lack free will and that our actions are causally determined, we must give up cherished views and attitudes that seem necessary to the healthy functioning of society and life. However, in his essay “Why We Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It,” Derk Pereboom argues that embracing this stance of hard incompatibilism can actually net benefits. He responds to concerns around wrongdoing; life’s meaning; emotions, reactive attitudes, and personal relationships; and moral anger.