Determinism Vs Free Will

According to Nancy Holmstrom, our actions are not free unless we have free will. We must be fully aware of our desires or beliefs in order to be responsible for our actions. Using Holmstrom’s account of soft determinism, it is possible to analyze how truly free our choices are in life, whether they be minor or significant decisions. I will be referencing Holmstrom’s “Firming up Soft Determinism” in order to argue that I had a minimal amount of freedom in choosing to attend the University of Kansas.

Or is each action pre-determined? These are interesting concepts that will bring us to the issues that will be discussed throughout this paper. Do we truly have free will on our actions or are they previously determined for us? Free will and Determinism offer us different views on how we can perceive the ultimate course of our actions and life.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

Many argue that hard determinism is the best approach to take when assessing this hypothesis as once you abandon the outdated notion of freedom; you can create a much

Many times I find myself sitting and wondering whether I am fully free or not. I wake up every single morning and do the same routine, which is eat breakfast, go to class or work, do homework, go to the gym, shower, and then go to bed. Does this truly mean I am free? There are a lot of questions that you can ask yourself while following a routine. Is this really the path I should have taken? Were my choices determined by external factors? Determinism is the thesis that an any instant there is only one physically possible future. Robert Blatchford and Walter Terence Stace, two philosophers, both agree that determinism is true, although they have two different views on whether this means that people are free or not. Blatchford believes that everything is predestined. Stace on the other hand, believes that a person chooses what they do because of free will. In this essay I am going to discuss both of the philosophers’ views more in depth and why I favor Stace’s view over Blatchford’s.

Determinism supporters claim that all consequences are inevitable since conditions are met and nothing else would occur by any chances. And determinism could influence and controlling everything in the universe with causal laws. According to determinism, we could make predictions about the occurrences of certain events or actions of human beings. There three types of determinism that I will discuss in the following, the Hard determinism, Soft determinism and Libertarianism.

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.

Determinism refers to the belief that everything happen necessarily and every event has a cause. Determinism believes events can happen for multiple causes but does not allowed the possibility that something results from no cause. Every action has a cause even if one believes the decision was made on their own

Determinism is a theory that all events, including moral choices, are entirely decided by external existing

For example, physical determinism is when everything that exists or occurs is simply an arrangement of physical particles that conform to the laws of physics. Our tossing and failing to "swish" the paper ball in the waste basket was caused by a number of other events, which includes our choosing to toss the paper, which was also determined by other factors leading up to our decision.

The alarm clock sounds, you get up and stand before your wardrobe, facing a decision. The white shirt or the blue, both clean, both equally nice, but it is still an easy decision. The blue. You revel in your creativity and ready yourself for the day to come. The freedom you have always known permitted the choice, your free will grants you this privilege. Or does it? Free will is a false concept often confused with free choice. Free will does not truly exist, the limitations set by nature and the influence of other people hinder the ability to choose without the impact of past experiences.

What determines the course of our lives? Is it fate? Is our lives path predetermined by a higher power? Or is it free will? Are we masters of our own destinies in a random universe? What happens when people choose fate over free will or if they choose free will over fate. Philosophers and religious figures have been having the-fate versus free will-debate for centuries. Is it because they think fate or free will is the better way to live. How do we create our own destiny and fulfill our life’s purpose if we don’t know whether we are governed by fate or free will?

     Though there seems to be a lot of evidence in favor of determinism, there is one field that remains an anomaly in science. Almost every area of science is based on cause and effect, order, and a structured protocol of operation, but the Quantum Mechanics is different. All matter is made up of atoms, and all atoms are made up of electrons, neutrons, and protons. These in turn are made up of quarks. The movement of quarks, and the emission of photons as electrons skip shells seem to be totally random. If this is true, then what are the implications on the free will/determinism debate? It may seem like an obscure point, but if you look at the definition of determinism, it says that all things are caused, and if there is one single uncaused event, then determinism must be false. So if you find one random event, then determinism is nothing more than a myth, but, in light of this

Determinism is the rational idea that all the decisions that humans make during their lifetimes are predetermined by two factors: their heredity and their environment. Robert Blatchford, a famous English philosopher from the 20th century, goes in depth on the subject matter by discussing topics like heredity and environment, responsibility, and guilt and punishment. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, our choices are determined by our heredity and/or our environment, and therefore, we cannot be held responsible for our decisions, and we cannot justify punishing people for something they cannot control.

Though there is no singular definition of ‘free will’, the standard argument against it is the dilemma between determinism/indeterminism and the fact that these two concepts threaten the prospect or the existence of free will. Determinism is the basic philosophical principle that every event, including human decisions and actions, are the imminent consequence of prior events. Strict determinism would argue that free will does not exist due to the fact that our previous actions or past events, determine what our future actions will be. Thus creating the idea that a ‘present free will’ could not actually occur, essentially contending that human autonomy is impossible. A determinist would argue that ‘free will’ is essentially an illusion, arguing that preceding actions predetermine any choice we make in the future. Though determinism argues against the case of free will, it is a common misconception that most compatibilists are determinists. Though useful, determinism is somewhat unnecessary when deciding whether we act freely or not as it fails to explain why we act at will. However, the objection to free will that the deterministic approach takes is one that I will explore in this essay in regards to the different theories of compatibilism.