Discussion on the Determination of Self Essay

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.

The acceptance of determinism eliminates this kind autonomy. This is because acceptance of determinism accepts that we are not the ultimate source of our actions and that every event is “necessitated by antecedent events.” (2) If we are not the Ultimate source of our actions we are not acting freely.

Some proponents of free will argue that by choosing to do something, one causes oneself to act. One could have caused oneself to act in another manner, and therefore the act, although caused by that person, is still a free choice. However, that notion is held under scrutiny because a person who acts freely has no evidence that they have acted of his or her own accord. For all one knows, one’s actions and choices could have been causally determined, and although one thought one was acting out of free will, one is not. There is no definite proof to show that one’s choices are made freely. As A.J. Ayer stated in his essay, Freedom and Necessity, “…but from the fact that a man is unaware of the causes of his action, it does not follow that no such causes exist” (Ayer 272). Since there is no way of knowing if one exercises free will, determinism poses a serious threat to the concept of free thinking and free acting human beings.

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

The age old question of whether humans are controlled by determinism, have the ability to control their fate, both or neither. This question is unanswerable but the debate strongly suggests that hard determinism is the way humans are governed. The way “freedom” is described also has a major influence on the arguments for and against determinism and free will. A hard determinist views freedom as, “The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint” (dictionary.com, 2015), this can be explained through the argument: We are free so long as, if we want or choose of desire to do X, then we do X. We feel free because we do not recognise the connection between desires, motives, action, etc. This argument gives

Do I act as I do through choice or are my actions influenced by factors beyond our control? This uncertainty has concerned psychologists for decades, consequently giving rise to the 'Autonomy versus Determinism' debate. By definition, autonomy is the belief that we are free to make decisions and thus control all of our actions, however determinism contradicts this view by suggesting that all of our actions are entirely determined by the external and internal forces operating on them. Nowadays It is now commonly documented by most psychologists that it is a combination of both autonomy and determinism that

The existence of free will has often been brought into question. Moral responsibility, the assumed result of free will, has been equally debated. Some philosophers posit that humans possess free will in its entirety. Others believe that, although many aspects of one’s life are predetermined, one still possesses just enough freedom to be morally responsible. However, as one will find, neither approaches are tenable explanations of human decision making. The former concept of free will ignores the constraints placed on humans from both external and internal influences, and the latter cannot logically reconcile moral responsibility with determinism. In contrast to these two fallible positions, I find that humans do not possess any free will and,

The concept of free will is certainly a reassuring proposition, yet despite it being comforting to believe that humans have the ability to act outside of external influences, the evidence suggests otherwise. Determinism, the principle that all events are determined by causes that are independent of one’s will, is a valid position supported by a myriad of information in various fields of study. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, and demonstrates that our choices in life are determined by our heredity, environment, and the fact that all things have a cause; therefore, we cannot be held responsible for our decisions, and we cannot justify punishing people for something they cannot control.

The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.

Are you really free to choose? Over many years this question has boggled the minds of philosopher. It may seem as though things that happen throughout the course of your live are by accident, when in fact, they are completely and entirely predetermined. It had been stated by great philosopher, Leucippus, “nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and of necessity.”(Leucippus, Fragment 569 - from Fr. 2 Actius I, 25, 4) Therefore, human behaviour is the result of deterministic forces, rather than decisions based on free will. To understand, first, one must have a firm understanding on the difference between both, free will and determinism. Thought the idea of total control over any given situation sounds ideal to most, it is however,

We as a society like to think of ourselves as free. Free to go where we choose, do what we like, and live our lives as we deem fit. Of course, we all realize that it doesn’t always quite work out so perfectly and there are logical barriers keeping you from living every day eating candy and riding roller coasters. We certainly don’t have total freedom in that sense, but we believe we are free in the sense that we can choose things for ourselves and live life by our own rules, within reason. But what if we have even less control than we think? Several notable philosophers have contemplated what it means to have freedom and whether or not we have any choices at all. I talk, of course, about determinism and the human psyche.

A theory that has attacked the validity of discussions on freedom in modern philosophy is determinism. In these discussions, questions have arisen as to how the truth or falsity of this theory should affect our lives. In this essay I will discuss the formal implications, illustrated by Peter Strawson, that come about from this. This will mean discussion of our reactive attitudes on: our moral considerations and on our inter-personal relationships with others in general. With this in mind, I will argue in favour of the idea that the truth or falsity of determinism is not of legitimate concern to those seeking a rational justification of our moral practices

Are genetics to blame for sin? This is a question causing much debate in today’s society. In this paper I will discuss my opinion on the nature versus nurture theory, and where God fits into the equation. Is a person's behavior and personality strictly nature, strictly nurture, or a combination of both? Is it feasible for someone to blame their behavior on genetics, on their upbringing, or must a person take personal responsibility for their choices?

Free will, the capability to choose, act, or think individually, exists in all human beings; whether one would like to acknowledge it or not. The idea of having a choice in one’s own life is empowering; whereas the feeling or thought of not having a say one’s life is just as demeaning. But, this belittling feeling people impose on themselves is voluntary. We all do have a choice, whether we believe it’s there or not.

However, the question of whether human beings have free will has actually long been a controversial question even for some of the greatest thinkers in history, with answers made based on religious notions or scientific researches from philosophy to psychology. It is very difficult to have an ultimate answer to this question as the answer can be very different depends on one’s definition of “Free Will”. For this paper to remain focus on the scope of psychology, we shall define “Free Will” here as the ability to make choices free from constraints.