Incompatibilism: The Conflict Between Free Will And Determinism

Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a

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.

Diametrically opposed to hard determinism is a philosophical viewpoint with which free will is closely compatible: libertarianism. Proponents of this position, such as philosopher William James, maintain that humans are all free and therefore, liable for their actions. When making a decision, people “choose which path to take, and (…) are as a result responsible for that choice”. With this in mind, “the testimony of our direct, lived experience” is what offers “the most compelling grounds” for this argument; according to James, evidence of free will cannot be found through scientific study. Rather, the existence of free will should be determined by the average person’s “assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts”. In short, the argument that libertarians assert is that free will should be believed in simply because the majority of the population believes in it. The existence of freedom will most likely never be definitively proven or

Compatibilism believes in both free will and partial idea of determinism. compatibilism claim that even though everything is determined, however humans have free will in determined life. Both determinism and compatibilism agree with the idea of everything is predetermined, but they disagree on the idea of free will. Determinism believe that there is no free will and Everything is determined while compatibilism no indeed there is free will in determined life, and humans are completely free and responsible of their actions. Compatibilism conclude their argument by our desire and goal are already determined by previous event and casual low of nature, but humans are free and responsible for their

Free will is described as making choices and actions with the ability to have done otherwise. Causal determinism threatens this principal, because if an event is predetermined, one could not have done otherwise. For example, if a person is pre-determined to watch a certain television show one evening, one does not have the ability to choose a different show to watch, and therefore, there is no use of free will. So, in the determinist’s eyes, free will is nonexistent.

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

Philosophers through history, especially those of late have debated over the matter of free will. The argument of humans being free is contradicted by a notion of a pre-determined fate, one that helps to conceive the notion of an omnipotent god. The three major groups of thought on this issue determinists, libertarians and compatibilists all have varying views of free will, while compatibilism is a combination of beliefs of the other two groups. A compatibilist would reject any notion that physical determinism impedes free will, as an event may be determined but done voluntarily.

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 problem of free will is the question whether humans truly have free will or not. Some believe in determinism, which is the belief that everything is already pre-determined and is controlled by a constant chain of causes. Others believe in free will which in its philosophical definition, that one must at least make some choices out of one own desires without constraint or pressure from outside sources. One prominent view of free will is compatibilism; which is the idea that even though they believe determinism is in fact true, some actions can still be free as they can act based on one’s own desires, also known as soft

Hard determinists believe that genetics determine personalities and actions only through the Newtonian laws of cause and effect. They affirm that freedom and free will are fiction and because of this humans have no moral responsibility for their actions. They insist that the sources of motivation behind their thoughts and actions are causualistic and predictable and that free will is an illusion triggered by convenience and ego. The past determines the future.

The problem of freewill concerns whether it is possible to retain agency in a world where events are necessitated. For the sake of clarity, my definition of freewill is “the power of acting or not acting without constraint”. Universal causation or hard determinism (both terms I shall use interchangeably) is the belief that “events in the future are fixed, as a matter of natural law, by the past”. Indeterministic theories such as libertarianism preserve freewill by maintaining that not all events are determined by preceding causes. Both indeterminism and determinism are incompatibilist theories as they imply that universal causation erodes the prospect of freewill. Compatibilist theories, like agent-causalism assert that causation doesn’t necessarily mean we do not have free will.

I have a libertarianism view when it comes to whether or not humans have free will. I believe in the possibility of free will and I do not accept determinism. Free will is defined as the ability to make decisions at your own discretion. Determinism is defined as the events of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, necessitate every event in the future. What determinism means is that past events and the laws of nature are the factors that dictate what decision will be chosen. The libertarianism view accepts incompatibilism. Incompatibilism states that free will and determinism are incompatible and cannot work

Nelly argued that this would imply limited free will and that there cannot be such a thing. She argued that I am taking the side of compatibalism which states that scientific determinism is compatible with free will and that according to this theory, free choice is one that is not compelled internally or externally.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

Everyday we make choices about what we wear, what we eat, and what we do. However, are we actually making these decisions? One of the greatest debates in philosophy, and life is if we are truly free or not.  Many philosophers have made arguments that we make our own choices while others have decided that other forces outside of ourselves predetermine are choices. Universal Determinism is the theory that every occurrence in the universe is determined before it ever happened. This means that every choice you made since you woke up this morning was determined prior to ever making that decision. This poses an apparent threat to the idea that our actions are free because the thesis of Universal Determinism means we do not have free will and all the choices that we have made and will make have already been decided by a force outside of ourselves. If Universal Determinism is true all of our actions can be predicted. Freedom of action is acting in a way that you could have done differently while freedom of will is having the will to choose what you want to do. When philosophers discuss free will, they are actually questioning freedom of action; despite being a question of freedom of action, philosophers actually call it freedom of will. Philosophers have separated into two groups of debate in the conversation of free will Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. These philosophers of Compatibilism and Incompatibilism, which can be separated into Hard Determinism and Libertarianism