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.

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

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

Free will and determinism are two distinct philosophies regarding human character that some philosophers believe to be compatible, while other philosophers do not. Determinism suggests that every action and decision is predictable and foreseeable while free will affords these decisions as random acts and selectable by our will and desire to choose to decide which path to take. In this paper, I will argue that free will is not compatible with determinism.

Many believe that the world is largely determined but we can still act freely as our behaviour is not predictable. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with hard determinism as he believed that ‘man chooses freely, not out of necessity’. Although Aquinas and others that criticise hard determinism and disagree with the hard determinist views, would still agree with hard determinists in that free will and determinism are incompatible, but would argue that we have free will but our lives are not determined. This view that free will and determinism are incompatible but it is free will that exists, not determinism, is also supported by libertarians.

Determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism are three significantly different views on where unaccountability might stop and where free will and moral responsibility begin. Determinism is the strict opinion that every action and decision is the cause of an event, genetics or the environment prior to that action. Quite the opposite is libertarianism, which happens to be the genuine belief in free will as well as the denial of universal causation. Finally, deep self-compatibilism meshes both of these stand points together and introduces the idea that one’s action can be free if it stems purely out of personal, authentic desire. Since all three judgments have a backbone of convincing

Determinism vs freewill has been a highly discussed topic for many years. One of the compound reasons behind that, is most people really don’t like the thought of determinism because it threatens their personal view of freedom! Another reason it has been debated for so long is both sides have very strong points to deter the other view.

     The topic of freewill vs. determinism has always been something that has interested me. I follow the Christian faith very strongly but my views on the subject vary almost daily. The concept of freewill and determinism is something that, as a Christian, I often struggle with. By no means do I think that I have all the answers or that I am right. I believe that in order to find the truth or what is right you have to be willing to accept that everything you believe could be false. This is a topic that I have asked about and debated with many different Christian leaders including pastors, missionaries and youth ministers, as well as other people belonging to different faiths. No

Throughout history, scientists and philosophers have pondered the question, “Do we as humans really make our own choices, or rather are our choices predetermined by some sort of natural order? Our decisions and actions may, in fact, even be the result of chemical reactions occurring in the neurons residing in our brain. We as humans are curious as to what “free will” is truly defined as. Whatever the answer, the question posed is one that will result in many different varying opinions, many of which could impact the worlds of both science and philosophy. The subject of free will vs. determinism is tackled by Scott Meyers in his novel, Off to Be the Wizard, which was released in March of 2014.

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.

The problem of freewill concerns whether it is possible to retain agency in a world where events are necessitated. For the sake of clarity, my definition of freewill is “the power of acting or not acting without constraint”. Universal causation or hard determinism (both terms I shall use interchangeably) is the belief that “events in the future are fixed, as a matter of natural law, by the past”. Indeterministic theories such as libertarianism preserve freewill by maintaining that not all events are determined by preceding causes. Both indeterminism and determinism are incompatibilist theories as they imply that universal causation erodes the prospect of freewill. Compatibilist theories, like agent-causalism assert that causation doesn’t necessarily mean we do not have free will.

Free will is one of the great debates among humans. What is it and do we even have it are two common questions. Freedom is not always easy to define but there is one compelling version of free will. I believe that humans are not truly free, they have free will but much of their lives are determined by other external causes because of the dual nature of decisions. First I will argue what the theory of compatibilist is and why it is the most reasonable. Then I will look at the moral responsibility someone has with this view and its opposing argument.

The idea that the future is already determined is known in philosophy as determinism.  There are various definitions of determinism available; but in this essay, I shall use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition, which is ‘the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future

Determinism is an idea that states that everything can be explained because it has an adequate reason for being the way it is rather than a different way, meaning that the world has natural laws and everything happens for a reason. This is important as many philosophers have argued between the extent of determinism and the part it plays with free will, taking the claim that if our behavior is governed by natural causes, we are not morally free. Everything will happen due to reasons that have built upon themselves and bringing forth an effect, which then brings about more causes. This is taking the case of hard determinism. This issue is very significant when talking about ethics, as blame and morality surround free will, and if we do not have free will can we be held responsible for our actions? Before we blame a person we must decide if they could have refrained from what they did or if it was inevitable due to causal determinism. I believe that free will and fatalistic/ determinism both have an effect on our human lives and the way we make our choices, contributing to our moral freedom.

What are your guys thoughts on determinism and free will? Do you believe that all of life is predestined, random, or a mixture of both?