Free will vs. Determinism

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

Over time, numerous philosophers have dabbled at the concepts surrounding free will, forming their own beliefs that either relate or reject other philosophical views. Free will is defined as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. Epicurus, Stoics, and John Locke portray arguments about their beliefs on free will. Many times, each philosophical view of the three were influenced by aspects of another philosopher, especially Aristotle. Although their beliefs are unique, each philosophical view can be connected together. All three philosophical views either promote or reject the ideology of determinism referring to the issue of free will. I accept the Stoics beliefs on free will due to freedom resembling a person’s choices to do what he or she wants to do in life.

Determinism undermines two aspects of free will: (1) decisions are “up to you” and (2) the origins of your actions are outside of our control, by either God, decrees of fate, etcetera. These are two important aspects, but because determinism describes what would happen if the universe ran on determinism, not necessarily that

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to

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.

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.

There is a wide range of philosophical views about the relationship between determinism and free will. These include, hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. When comparing free will and determinism the contrasts are quite evident. Hard determinists believe that free will does not exist, because determinism is true and incompatible with free will. While compatibilists believe that determinism is true, but free will is compatible with determinism. Libertarianists believe that we have free will, and determinism is incompatible with free will, meaning determinism must be false. In the simplest form, free will is the ability to choose actions without being influenced by others or natural laws. After learning

Are we in control of our life decision? Or is our life just a script we follow? The question of free will has stumped philosophers for years, in which philosophers have disagreed on the conclusion. There are several perspectives on this issue, the most popular of which are determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. By discussing the similarities and differences of these perspectives, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, we can determine which of these is most accurate.

Do you believe in free will or determinism? Free will and Determinism is one of the biggest topics in the world of philosophy. It is still a question that people and philosophers are still trying to ban together and find out an answer to this. One thing that philosophers and others try to do is say that humans all have free will and everything else in the world does not have free will. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible solutions. Free will has many aspects. Some aspects of free will are the way we act every single day. We are all act different ways and do different things. Determinism means that we obviously do not have free will and everything we do already has a “plan”. In other words everything is already

My understanding of determinism is that everything happens for a reason and those things cannot be changed, even if we wanted them to. Therefore, free will, the process of making ones decisions without a prewritten path, is impossible. “Determinists believe that you can’t help but feel and react the way you’re reacting right now” (Tallman, 2016). This discussion is going to be very interesting, as I did find myself really thinking about nature vs nurture while doing my research.

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?

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

This essay will attempt to explain whether a person chooses this question using either free will or determinism or possibly even both. It will try to demonstrate this by referring to key arguments from various philosophers and identifying both the weaknesses and strengths of the arguments used.

Even though our knowledge is telling us that we do not possess free will, most of us are loathe to accept this conclusion. We think, if I do not have free will, then it is not important whatever I do. I might just as well stay in bed all day. Such reaction is emotional, not logical. It is this kind of negative emotional reaction which inhibits us from accepting the logical conclusion of determinism. The following is a simple thought exercise which may help us understand the deception which our emotions are perpertrating upon upon our intellects. Consider the following similations of an “undetermined universe” and a “determined universe.” Suppose that a new car is to be given away by your local community association on Saturday night. Every adult in the community is eligible. In the undetermined universe, the winner of the car will be drawn at