How Self Control Is Truly Free Will

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

It also depends on how we explain free will; free will in this case is how one acts out on their own will. Our genetics can determine how we can act. When our

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

Although free will has been defined in multiple, conflicting ways, the present approach analyzes it as a psychological capacity including self-control, choices, planning, and the ability to assess and initiate things independently. These capabilities are useful for making human social life and culture possible, but they depend on a limited resource and therefore often fall short of optimal levels. Religion may be helpful to individuals and society in part because it supports both the exercise of free will and the belief in it.

There are many different types of control that are experienced throughout any given person’s lifetime. There is being the person in control, being controlled by someone else, and even being controlled by one’s self. Each position has an effect on surrounding people and the mental state of the being. Within the texts, Macbeth, “And of Clay we are Created,” “The Yellow Wallpaper,” and “To Build a Fire,” the influence of control is always there, but appears in different forms.

In my opinion I believe free will controls our lives because the decisions people make affect the future lives of people and decisions. Free will also changes outcome in the future. For example our actions. One reason free will controls our lives is because the decisions people make affect other people. Fate doesn’t have any control on actions.

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.

When it comes to free will scientists fall into three different groups: metaphysical determinists, neuroscientists, and compatibilists. Metaphysical determinists believe that decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transferred from one brain cell to another. Therefore, when discussing the topic of free will, metaphysical determinists are free will deniers, known as libertarian incompatibilists. Since making decisions without these electrical and chemical impulses is impossible, all of our choices are determined for us. Neuroscientists believe that there is some sort of neurobiological gap between reason and action and that “there is an irreducible non-Humean self which makes a reason effect by acting on it” (Banja) if we are to be free. However neuroscientists have found no room in the human nervous system for this noumenal self or gap, so there is no scientific evidence of humans having free will. Compatibilists believe they are the authors of their actions and can be held responsible for their actions and decisions. Since we have the ability to control the core decisions that determine who we are-- “such as persons with chemical dependency disorders enrolling

In his paper, “In Defence of Free Will,” Philosopher C. A. Campbell introduces a Libertarian conception of free will. Campbell’s view of free will consists of the ideas that a free choice is caused by the self, but not by a specific occurrence happening within the self. He describes an action as free if and only if the self is the sole cause of the action, and the agent had the choice to act differently. He admits that the first condition alone is not sufficient criterion to deem an action as free. He states “it is possible to conceive an act of which the agent is the sole cause, but which is at the same time an act necessitated by the agent's nature,” (Campbell 284) and is in part, not an action of free will. The belief which insists, and

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

Some people may say that having control over someone or something can bring satisfaction and a sense of power. In the an article called “Gunman Kills Himself After Hostage Drama (584)” written by Charles P. Wallace and Tim Waters loss of control and the feeling of being helplessness makes Robert B. Rose commit a last act of asserting control over himself. In another article written by Martin E.P. Seligman called “On Learned Helplessness (585)” the feeling of loosing control of oneself is something that can cause someone to do things that they thought they would never do. What is hard to understand is that some of the things the someone may commit may implicate the lives of others in a negative way and the ending result could be death.

Free will is an often debated, and arguably overly analyzed topic. Theories abound stating anywhere from that there is not the possibility of free will to free will being a possibility with the theories to back up the claims. Addressing these theories and their arguments, both for and against should allow a person to come to a personal conclusion about the issue of free will, though the debate will undoubtedly continue long in to the future. This paper will discuss the views of Dennett and Skinner. It will address the three major theories that have been put forth as the truth behind free will. It will review the arguments against these, and whether people should be held accountable for their actions. Finally, it will help to draw practical

There are many great philosophical ideas and questions that are known and of course unknown. One of the questions that really enticed my interest was the question of whether or not we have free will. I myself was once a believer of people having free will and doing what I want was my choice and my choice alone. However, after careful consideration and lectures I have been reversed in how I believe in free will. Is there any free will though? Many people would say yes there is and of course there are some who believe that free will is a fallacy and not to be believed. Whether or not there is free will is yet to be determined but what we have to go on and by is from philosophers and every person who has their two cents to fill in. In

Some people believe that no matter what a person does in their life, it will ultimately have no effect on the outcome ofa it. Existentialists find this to be true because they believe that no matter what they ever do, they will always die. Existentialists link the inevitability of death to the idea that there is no higher power. Additionally, existentialists hold the belief that no one should allow society to control how they live their life. Writer Albert Camus uses many existentialist themes his works like The Stranger and “The Guest”. The protagonists in both stories demonstrate existentialist beliefs in their actions. As a result, many existentialist ideas can be seen throughout out both novels. Camus uses the paradox of free will in order to illustrate the inevitability of death for everyone as well as the idea that in order to obtain free will, a person must reject society and face exile.

Casual determinism put simply, is the theory that all things happen for a particular reason and everything is predetermined. It is the idea all the events in one’s life can be explained, and each event has a particular reason for being. If everything is predetermined, then this therefore suggests that the future is fixed which further suggests that we can possibly predict the behavior of things. The theory of determinism ultimately suggests that we don’t the capacity to have free will because all future events are destined to occur, and furthermore we do not posses the knowledge to figure out whether it can be proved true or false (Hoefer). There has been three positions that have developed concerning the theory of causal determinism: hard determinist, compatibilist or soft determinist, and compatibilist.