Free-Will And Determinism

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

If we didn’t, then we couldn’t be held accountable for our actions. We couldn’t be praised when doing good, nor shunned for doing bad. If we didn’t have freewill, laws would be pointless; we would be blaming someone for actions they had no control over. A determinist views everything based around natural law, from our behaviors even to the way we think; everything is already predetermined. I fail to believe in that entirely and neither could A.J. Ayer. He adapted his view based on behaviors of one’s character. In the book “The Philosophical Imagination: An Introduction to Philosophy”, Ayer redefines what freedom is as to be able to break down the argument. “Suppose that I am compelled by another person to do something 'against my will'. In that case, as the word 'freedom' is ordinarily used, I should not be said to be acting freely: and the fact that I am' fully aware of the constraint to which I am subjected makes no difference to the matter.” (Ayer, 114) He goes on to argue that the opposite of freedom is constraint. When we say or think: “the event was out of that person’s control” we are generally correct, the person had no say in the matter. We fail to see that the person is under constraint, not force, as their actions are not determined by their rational conscience. They may desire to make a different choice, but in the end are forced to make another. Ayer’s point in all this is to show both sides of hard determinism and libertarianism; while there maybe times where things are out of our control, we still have an opinion on the matter, and we still have a say in as to the majority of our other decisions. In redefining free, Ayer is able to conclude that compatibilism works because an action being caused, doesn’t mean it is constrained as one would believe it to be. He believed we need determinism to retain morality, as we determine who we are and the life we want to live. In such instance, we have a choice that leads to a series of

A choice issues from, and can be sufficiently explained by, an agent’s character and motives, then to be ultimately responsible for the choice, the agent must be at least in part responsible by virtue of choices or actions voluntarily performed in the past for having the character and motives he now has (295).

     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.

The incompatibilists argue that one is morally responsible for what she has done given that she could have done otherwise. Further, they think that if determinism is true then one could not have done otherwise, so if determinism is true, one is not morally responsible for things she has done. In debates surrounding the issue of free will, philosophers have focused on discussing whether determinism is true or false. Harry Frankfurt thinks even though the requirement of alternative possibilities in order to be held morally responsible for our actions seems intuitively plausible, it is a questionable premise in the argument provided by incompatibilists. Frankfurt calls the premise that “a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise” the principle of alternative possibilities or PAP (Frankfurt, 829). He argues that PAP is false and a person can be held morally responsible even if she could not have done otherwise.

There are compelling experiential and anthropological arguments that strongly support universal causation. Using these arguments, I will defend it as the most plausible solution to the problem of freewill, while considering the alternatives such as compatibilist and libertarian theories and pointing out their core weaknesses. The implications of universal causation are wide-ranging. Its truth means we don’t have freewill nor moral responsibility, rendering our entire justice system and conception of ethics inherently flawed. However, as this essay progresses, it will become apparent that this is a

The libertarian view requires a free action to be non-random, uncaused and ‘could have been done otherwise’. However, indeterminacy suggests that a prior event provides a clue of a range of probable future events. Thus the indeterministic version of event is not uncaused. To explore the possibility of indeterminacy to be compatible with free action, we have to tolerate this shortcoming. Therefore in this essay, we will regard a person who acts freely as someone who could have non-randomly chosen other than the chosen non-random event. Whether the event is caused or uncaused is driven out of the equation.

In this way, we can protect both science and mankind. Because in incompatibilism freewill conflict with science. Thus, as per compatibilism, freedom is compatibilism with determinism (Sider 2014, pg. 128-129). The issue was that we misjudge the idea of freewill. We have to clear up conceptual confusion about freedom. Determinism seems to conflict with freewill due to misjudge the idea of freewill. If ‘free’ means ‘uncaused’ then contention would be real and after understanding the idea, the conflict will clear. "But if free does not mean uncaused then according to compatibilism ‘free action is one that is caused in the right way’. Moving further, hard determinism and libertarian says that all causes could be treated similarly. Does not matter how it is caused" (Sider 2014, pg. 128). But, compatibilism reply that all causes are not comparable. Some philosopher rejects compatibilism on the premise of actions that were caused by some early occasion even before my

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

encountered, therefore meaning that any consequences of a chosen action are the fault of the

To compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism, we must know what each is first before we can break them down to their cores and begin to an analyze each to see what is the basically the same and what is different. John Chaffee author of The Philosopher’s Way, A Text with Readings states that determinism is “The view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion” (Chaffee, 173). Chaffee’s definition of compatibilism is “The view that all events, including human actions, are caused. However, we can consider human actions free if they are the result of internal motivations, not

every action we do is of our own design, and therefore we are morally responsible for the result of those actions. Of course there are exceptions such as being held at gunpoint, being hypnotized or driven by some psychological disorder. No-one would hold you at fault for actions you were forced to commit, but we do hold you responsible for other actions, ones we feel they were free to make. We feel appalled when we see someone kill, or act in an amoral way. This feeling - Campbell thinks - is what shows we must have free will; because without free will we can’t be held responsible for our actions. Yet when you see someone do something you as “why did you do that?” or “what made you do that?”; we ask for the

A Clockwork Orange demonstrates the philosophically issues of free will and determinism through how the main character was treated in the movie. It also addresses important issues such as ethics, philosophy of the mind, free will and determinism, and the problem of perception. Philosophers such as John Hospers, B.F. Skinner, and Jean-Paul Sartre have different views on the issue through their theories of how individuals are or are not responsible for the free will choices that they make in life. The main character in the movie was a very violent , and reckless person. He participated in sinful acts such as being a gang member, raping women, being involved in fights, etc. These actions resulted in him being sent to prison and eventually being brainwashed into doing things out of his character. The three philosophers have very different interpretations of how the main character should have been dealt with and the reasonings behind his actions.

To truly appreciate the importance of agency in the face of suffering caused by evil, it is important to clarify what Swinburne means by freedom and responsibility, especially the distinction between their trivial and significant forms. Trivial freedom is freedom to perform non-moral actions of one’s own choosing – what restaurant to dine in or what clothes to buy. On the other hand, significant freedom is the ability to choose to benefit or harm ourselves, other humans, animals, and our world. At the same time, trivial responsibility is responsibility for non-humans and inanimate objects and includes such thing as chores and other petty obligations. In contrast, significant responsibility is responsibility for the welfare of our own lives, the lives of others, and the world. Significant freedom and responsibility requires having a strong inclination to do what is bad or wrong; otherwise, choosing what is good or right is less significant, since such choices wouldn’t require much serious deliberation.