Critically Examine the Claim That Free Will and Determinism Are Incompatible

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.

At the same time, the Libertarians believe that people have “free will”, and there are no such inevitable results of those behaviors that are controlled by “free will”. Libertarianism has different meanings in different academic fields. From the general level, the libertarianism refers to people’s ability to decide whether or not to do something according to their

Hard determinism claims all the actions of human beings or consequences of events are determined by external conditions, with such conditions satisfied there will be no choice of the results available any time. Spinoza, the philosopher who stood for Hard determinism was convinced that no free wills were available for anything in the universe. Those “Free will” existed in people’s mind were built on illusions, since they had ignored the actual causes to them. The hard determinism could apply to everything we neither might encountered in the past nor in present time. But I think the laws were found or formed by ourselves since the evolutions of the human societies in thousands years, it 's not correct to say that no choices are ever made by ourselves. And the key point is that most of the causal laws were found through scientific methods, but sciences has enhanced our power on predicting and even changing the progress that will result in a different end by discovering more causal laws as time passes.

To establish determinism, we can admit by denoting that some events in our lives happen because of prior reasons without yet losing our sense of freedom. It is actually evident that the events and actions that an individual undertakes action have different effects upon him even though they may be past or present events. Though we might not be sure whether our past event result to our present status in life, it is pertinent to note that freedom in decision making is an open forum for each individual and impacts on later activities. We can admit that some events, for example, a next domino fall, are bound to happen because of a prior event. It is possible that if we have no power to act other than us, in fact, to act, then we have no free will. This argument for hard determinism is persuasive. It is certainly valid, and none of the premises appears to be clearly false. Although we have discovered a plausible argument in defense of hard determinism, most people find this argument to be impossible to accept. In our lives, we hold each other in account of our deeds that we had made wrong choices.

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.

Philosophers through history, especially those of late have debated over the matter of free will. The argument of humans being free is contradicted by a notion of a pre-determined fate, one that helps to conceive the notion of an omnipotent god. The three major groups of thought on this issue determinists, libertarians and compatibilists all have varying views of free will, while compatibilism is a combination of beliefs of the other two groups. A compatibilist would reject any notion that physical determinism impedes free will, as an event may be determined but done voluntarily.

Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, once stated, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” This quote speaks slightly of soft determinism but mostly of hard determinism. In order to explore what kind of determinism “The Yellow Wall-Paper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman negotiates, one must first define what hard and soft determinism are. Hard determinism is the theory that behavior and actions are controlled by outside factors, so humans do not have free will. While soft determinism is the theory that humans regulate their own actions.

Libertarianism rejects soft determinism and hard determinism because libertarians believe that freedom does exist. However, libertarians believe in indeterminism because it does not believe in any predetermined causality. Also, “libertarians say that you also have to be free to want differently than you do.” (pp. 227-233, Palmer)

Freedom is the ability to do what a person desires and is capable of. For centuries philosophers have questioned if humans really have free will or not. There are two bodies of thought on the subject. Determinists insist that choices are irrelevant to reality because there is a fated design for everyone. Libertarianists allege that humans make choices and guide themselves through a decision making process and are in absolute control of their futures. The thesis of determinism seems to contradict ordinary experiences, whereas the theory of libertarianism disregards event-causation. Philosopher Walter T. Stace proposed an alternative compatibilist philosophy. In order to recognize the ways in which Stace effectively amalgamates the two thesis' utilizing his campatibilist approach, an objective examination of the three ideas is compulsory. The following article will define the support and contradictions of hard determinism and libertarianism, as well as clarify the ways in which compatibilism is a practical alternative.

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

Hard Determinism and Libertarianism are not the only options we have to deal with the problem raised by determinism. As a matter of fact, there is Soft Determinism, which is, The belief that our actions can be free even though determinism is true. This option weighs in that Determinism is true. That our actions and the events that occur in our life are causally determined. For example, If you selected Chinese food rather than Pizza for dinner, you could n’t have chosen the other option given the exact circumstances and conditions again.

Are we in control of our life decision? Or is our life just a script we follow? The question of free will has stumped philosophers for years, in which philosophers have disagreed on the conclusion. There are several perspectives on this issue, the most popular of which are determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. By discussing the similarities and differences of these perspectives, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, we can determine which of these is most accurate.

To compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism, we must know what each is first before we can break them down to their cores and begin to an analyze each to see what is the basically the same and what is different. John Chaffee author of The Philosopher’s Way, A Text with Readings states that determinism is “The view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion” (Chaffee, 173). Chaffee’s definition of compatibilism is “The view that all events, including human actions, are caused. However, we can consider human actions free if they are the result of internal motivations, not

The second kind of determinism that Sappington (1990) speaks of is soft determinism which is the belief that human behavior is determined, but this does not mean that free will is incompatible with it. This view is says that people make choices that affect their lives but these choices themselves are determined by other factors. According to Sappington (1990) Hobbes, Locke Hume, and Mill represent this position among with many other famous psychologists. The idea of soft determinism is not controversial in psychology today. (Sappington 1990)

Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms enjoyed by all citizens. In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin. Generally, liberty seems to be distinct from freedom in that freedom concerns itself primarily, if not exclusively, with the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty also takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, liberty can be thought of as freedom limited by rights, and therefore cannot be abused.