Free Will Vs Determinism

The argument against free will states that; what you do is always determined by what you have the strongest desire to do, but you have no control over what you desire. If what you do is always determined by something that you have no control over then you can never actually act freely. It follows from what has been said that one does not have free will.

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.

As humans, free will is something we commonly assume we have. When evaluating what free will is, we become less certain. David Hume calls it “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” In simplistic terms, free will is having the ability to determine your own plan of action. There is a relationship between free will and freedom of action and causal determinism that must be evaluated to have a complete understanding of free will. There are compatibilist views that believe in free will and incompatibilist views that imply there is no free will. Free will is also related to both theological determinism and logical 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.

Hard Determinism is a theory which basically states that we are have no free will whatsoever and so we cannot be morally responsible for our actions. This is because all actions are said to have a prior cause, and so do our own human actions. In addition to this, genetics and our social environment are said to have a huge influence on the way we respond I situations, meaning we can never truly act off of our own accord, there is always something influencing the way in which we behave. In this essay, I intend to prove whether or not Hard Determinism is right to say we are not truly responsible for our actions. To do this, I will compare Hard Determinism to other theories, including Libertarianism (which states we are entirely free and responsible for our actions) and Soft Determinism or Compatibilism (which states we are determined to an extent, yet

Now, the argument for freewill states that nothing is determined and everything happens based off our own random actions and nothing is linked. Determinism takes a different route and believes every action is pre-determined and nothing is random because it has already been put in place to happen.

One of the strengths of the determinist viewpoint is that it is hard to argue against. There are definite patterns and connections throughout the physical universe and the biological realm. There is no denying that fact. Just look at modern chemistry or how everything is made up of waves. Also, you can’t prove that you ever had more than one choice since there can only ever be one choice. In other words, once the moment is gone it is impossible to say that things could have been different since there is no going back. It is also hard to deny that some of our actions are a result of certain causes. You can always argue that something in your past affected your choices in the present.

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.

The question of our freedom is one that many people take for granted. However, if we consider it more closely it can be questioned. The thesis of determinism is the view that every event or happening has a cause, and that causes guarantee their effects. Therefore given a cause, the event must occur and couldn’t occur in any other way than it did. Whereas, the thesis of freewill is the view that as human beings, regardless of a cause, we could have acted or willed to act differently than we did. Determinism therefore, states that the future is something that is fixed and events can only occur in one way, while freewill leaves the future open. Obviously a huge problem arises between these two theses. They cannot both be true

Recall: In “The Case Against Free Will” the authors present several claims: 1) The universe is a huge deterministic system where all events are result of prior causes. 2) Human actions are shaped by genetic determinism and environmental determinism. 3) All behaviors and actions of men are triggered by genetic make-up and social conditioning; thus, man has no free will. 4.)

Over the course of time, in the dominion of philosophy, there has been a constant debate involving two major concepts: free will and determinism. Are our paths in life pre-determined? Do we have the ability to make decisions by using our freedom of will? While heavily subjective questions that have been answered many different authors, philosophers, etc., two authors in particular have answered these questions very similarly. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher from the 18th century, argues in his essay “Of Liberty and Necessity” that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that they can both be accepted at the same time without being logically incorrect. Alike Hume, 20th century author Harry G. Frankfurt concludes in his essay “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” that the two major concepts are compatible. These two authors are among the most famous of Compatibilists (hence the fact that they believe free will and determinism are compatible ideas) in philosophical history. The question that then arises in the realm of compatibilism particularly, is one dealing with moral responsibility: If our paths in life are not totally pre-determined, and we have the ability to make decisions willingly (using free will), then how do we deem an individual morally responsible for a given decision? Frankfurt reaches the conclusion that we are held morally responsible regardless of

     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

Determinism is based off this notion that all events are pre-determined, without influence by human actions. If this is true, we can imply that people do not have free will and thus are not responsible for their actions. In Oedipus the King we see that the dichotomy of fate and free will is hazed by the hyperbole of events, which can make it difficult, but possible, to determine if humans even have free will. Through Oedipus’s flaws and decisions and Sophocles use of the imagery of a crossroad it is apparent that free will can be exercised in a meaningful way.

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 chance and uncertainty of randomness is an explanation of freedom. Given this act it would break the causal chain and abolish determinisms freedom. (Doyle 1,2) For human beings to have free will they are required to have some sort of randomness. If their actions are a direct consequence of a random event they are not responsible for their actions. Interdeterminism requires certainty to establish the knowledge and the laws of nature. Strawson and Sartre have very different views regarding free will. Throughout the paper, the idea of responsibility based on our actions and the issues of human beings not having free will is discussed. I believe human beings are able to have free will based on the