Determinism Vs. 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.

In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that

The debate between free will and determinism is something that will always be relevant, for people will never fully admit that we have no free will. But, while we may feel that we control what we do in life, we simply do not. The argument for free will is that individuals have full control and responsibility over their actions, and what they become in life as a whole (The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson, page 16). Determinism, on the other hand, is saying that we have no control over our actions and that everything we do in life is determined by things beyond our control (Strawson, page 7). After analysis of The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson and Freedom and Necessity by A. J. Ayer,

Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions.

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.

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.

Before I present my case against compatibilism, it seems prudent to frame this debate. By compatibilism is meant “The View that free will is compatible with determinism.” (1) This is important to remember as this debate is not about whether “free will” is real or an illusion. Likewise, it is not about whether determinism is a correct worldview. Rather, it is if these two principles are compatible. In order to demonstrate these principles compatible or

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 debate over the existence of free will is possibly one of the most important discussions of human nature. Insight into this debate holds vast ethical, legal and political implications. In my experience, those who are not familiar with the topic often conflate free will for consciousness, and impetuously accept the existence of free will. Free will is defined as the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior physical causes. Those who believe in free will thus ascribe a metaphysical contribution to behaviour (e.g., a soul) as they believe prior physical causes do not entirely account for behavior. The debate over free will has led to two, polar-opposite philosophical schools of thought: determinism and

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

This essay is a critical examination of the notion of free will, specifically with respect to the doctrine of libertarianism. In it, I discuss the weaknesses associated with the libertarian position. I argue that libertarianism is unsubstantiated both empirically and conceptually. To be clear, this essay is not meant to ultimately disprove Libertarianism, (I do not believe such can be accomplished due to the nature of the proposition); rather, I simply mean to show why it is unreasonable to accept libertarianism with the evidence and argumentation currently available.

I agree with some parts of free will and determinism. I feel like we all view ourselves as free willed individuals who are law abiding citizens for the reason of not creating chaos. The free will that we have allows us to make our own decisions and it is our nature to hold on to our thoughts and beliefs. Yet, there was a higher being such as a god that allowed us to make our own decision. This whole thing reminds me of the movie The Giver of how is a dystopian environment where everything is in discolored and everybody is comforned and dopes to have a free will. In a libertarian society, i can see the some of the positive outcomes of person’s liberty being the primary political view but i don't fully agree with the this view. Delgado’s experiment

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

Philosophers have long considered the question of whether or not we are in control of our fate or if it is determined by factors outside ourselves. Are we free? Determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism are three different philosophical approaches to answering this question.

The creed of freewill, which a large degree of mankind has immemorially upheld, is entirely false, according to my view; Kembleenian Determinism. My theory offers a bright outlook on the world, which is compatible with our moral intuitions, and extends our limited perspective of life and the world in which we dwell.