Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person

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.

2. An objection to Frankfurt is that he never tells readers to question the places that their second-order desires are coming from. With this, should a person accept second-order desires at face-value too? This is an issue because a second-order desire can become a first-order

Free Will is the capacity of acting without the pressures of fate and the ability to act because of one’s discretion. It is an idea that most believe in, because it means that you are in control

Since it is known that desire is easily manipulated, cares must be the opposite. In support of his position, Frankfurt argues that, “When a person cares about something, on the other hand, he is willingly committed to his desire. The desire does not move him either against his will or without his endorsement. He is not its victim; nor is he passively indifferent to it.” His point here is that cares can be categorized as not a desire, but a more powerful one. Cares are things that do not go away easily and are continuously wanted and thought about. Frankfurt adds, “Besides wanting to fulfill his desire, then, the person who cares about what he desires wants something else as well: he wants the desire to be sustained.” Furthermore, Frankfurt believes that cares are what you want to want, where as desires are just what you want.

An individual with “Free Will” is capable of making vital decisions and choices in life with own free consent. The individual chooses these decisions without any outside influence from a set of “alternative possibilities.” The idea of “free will” imposes a certain kind of power on an individual to make decisions of which he or she is morally responsible. This implies that “free will” would include a range of aspects such as originality, moral value, and self-governance. However, in life, individuals may not be free in making decisions. The aspect of freedom could entail remarkably a high status action and achievement in an individual’s life whose attainment could be close to impossibility. Often, people make

freedom of will, as presented in "Freedom of Will and the Concept of Person" and some problems that

According to Frankfurt, “there is no more than an innocuous appearance of paradox in the proposition that it is determined, ineluctably and by forces beyond their control, that certain people have free wills and that others do not” (20). Frankfurt’s theory is purely based on the relationship between different orders of desires, instead of the origin of the desires. In other words, so long as one has the freedom to desire a particular first-order desire of his, he has the freedom of will, even though all of his desires are causally determined.

The word freedom is often associated with the idea of an unfettered liberty to select from a range of alternatives coupled with a sense that our actions will not affect our natural state.

We typically consider freedom to be the capacity to exercise choice and as being exempt from authoritarian control

My second notion of free will requires that an actor is able to decide between different possibilities of actions that lead towards different futures. Robert Kane calls this concept ‘a garden of forking paths’; every action leads to other actions that again allow for alternatives of action (Kane, 2005: 7). If an actor could not have done otherwise, he would not have had free choice. Even if he did not choose to do otherwise, he could not have done so. Free will seems to require the power to do otherwise, or our actions would

The principle of freedom of an individual is the core tenet of liberalism. The foundation of liberalism is categorized into three. The first is the freedom from arbitrary rule, termed “negative freedom” which includes freedom of the press, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and right to property. The second set of rights ensures the protection and promotion of the capacity and opportunity for freedom, which is called the “positive freedom.” Example of such rights are the social and economic rights to health care, education, gainful employment, for human dignity and participation in the society. Thirdly, political rights of democratic representation or participation i.e., right to vote or be voted for to ensure that the other two rights are not infringed on (Kant & Political Philosophy, 1993. p. 173).

     Free will is one of the features that separates us as humans from animals and allows us to attain intelligent thought and reasoning. Of course, all of the features mentioned are unique to humans; the ability to exercise free will enables us to engage in all

Freedom means living life as one wants, everything else is a form of slavery. If a person is not allowed to make his or hers decisions, if he or she is not free to live life as he/she wants than he/she doesn’t have power over his or her existence. If freedom was not essential for every human being than no one would have found so fiercely for it. If it was not important than today we would not be still fighting to keep and extend our freedom.

Locke states that it is folly to suggest that the will can have liberty, is faulty due to them both being powers. He states that powers can only be attributed to agents (people), and that it us improper to suggest that the power of will can have the power of freedom. Moreover, to Locke, the correct statement would be that a person is free to will. He states that an agent is limited in the liberty, to either do or forebear doing something, and accordingly, the power of the will, or the act of it (volition) has the same dual limitations; either willing to do something, or forbearing willing to do something. In answer the question of what determines the will, Locke states one’s actions are a result of pleasure (good) and pain (evil). Either one’s will attempts to seek pleasure, or eliminate pain (find a comparatively less painful power than the currently proposed pain). Accordingly he considers desire to be a form of pain, or unease.

The concept of individual liberty is an idea that has been the result of centuries of class struggle. It began in the earlier stages of human history, for example in medieval times, society was organized into complex class structures with kings, nobles, knights, and peasants. After many societal revolutions between the oppressed and the oppressor as well as changes in the relationship between humans and their modes of production, the bourgeoisie began to form. Due to the increasing demand for products, industrialization was inevitable because of the need to satisfy this new demand. As demand continued to increase, an industrial middle class formed which then gave way to industrial millionaires, which is known today as the modern