Is It Responsible For His Behaviors Either Good Or Bad?

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.

Human factors are involved wildly in human behaviors and various social systems, including social laws and religion doctrines. Just like what I mentioned previously, scientists believe that the human life is pre-determined and human’s behavior is inevitable. They consider that if someone has all the information of one person, he or she may get to know how he or she is going to change in advance. But from the point of view throughout the history of human society people often turn to emphasize personal responsibility. Law and legal penalties for criminals act based entirely on the idea of individual “free will”. Most Jewish and Christian also believed that individuals should be responsible for the crime and suspects should be punished. We can imagine a psychology professor who believes determinism would say to a student: "You have to concentrate to your study, otherwise you will get nothing!" You can see the contradiction of human behaviors from this typical and ironic statement above, and notice that there exists a deviation between theoretical knowledge and actual human behaviors.

Their wills, which are believed to be freely gained, are actually the result of a causal chain originating from birth. The fact that humans are governed by their genes and environment means that the ability to make moral decisions as free agents is illusory. For these reasons, the hard determinist position, which is a sound, science-based theory, seems to be incompatible with the concept of free will.

Many argue that soft determinism is the best approach to take when assessing the question, as it does not rule out free will- the two are compatible and so moral decisions and moral debate remains possible. Followers of soft determinism believe that some of our actions are conditioned, while others have so complex a collection of

It offers a solution to the free will problem. Free will goes along with determinism because of the moral responsibility and it is incompatibility between each other. We are still held responsible for our voluntary actions and our actions are still determined. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism (McKenna). He or she can be morally responsible even if determinism is true, which there are logical reasons that this could be true. In this paper I will defend how compatibilism is tied up with both freedom and moral responsibility and give some examples that will support my argument for compatibilism. Also talk about the other two, determinism and libertarianism and give examples and then explain why I still agree on compatibilism. Free will is like a box of chocolates, unless you do not eat the free will chocolates, you will not feel guilty. How can one feel guilty for what they are compelled to do?

Above, was a deeper meaning of determinism and the theories that support it. The other term ‘free will’ will be now be discussed. My individual perspective of free will views people as puppets with society holding the strings. I see people actively and resourcefully understanding social scripts that society offers us. The definition of free will is having the ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. To put it simply, when faced with two or more options, it’s your ability to freely and determinedly pick one, either on the spot or after some consideration. A simple test of free will would be this: If one were able to replay their life back on tape and rewind it to the exact moment when you made the decision, with every circumstance leading up to that moment, you could have chosen differently. Now, there is no way to rewind the tape of our lives to make a different choice, and if that were the case would Rais have worked that morning shift? With that being said, is free will an illusion? I guess that is based off one’s own

Since it seems that I cannot deny determinism I will now attempt to falsify freewill. It may be true that we do not have free will and that all of our actions and future actions are already determined and destined to happen. However if we didn’t have freewill, then why would we have moral and legal practices? If we are not in control of our actions then how can we be punished for them?

Determinism is the doctrine, that every event, as well as human actions is determined by causes that are independent to the will. From determinism, two opposing views were identified. The incompatibilists view that determinism implies no free will, or the compatibilists view that determinism still allows for free will. The incompatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken determinism as use of a scapegoat, identifying determinism to infer that human beings are unable to have any free will, thus no moral responsibility for taken actions. Whilst the compatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken a softer view of determinism, holding the view that an agents actions are pre-determined, although the agent is still to be held morally responsible for the agent’s voluntary actions. Determinism, as argued for the compatibilists, allows for an agent to hold free will and share equal responsibility for chosen actions.

The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their

Among all the facts listed above, which prove that our social status is dependent on our parents’ with a 10 percent variation rate, that our genes which are inherited from our parents determine our personality and that our brain plays with our idea of past after an act is committed, to convince us that we made the decision beforehand, only this example taken from a phrase used in our daily language can be a clue to show that free will does not exist. If it existed, then it would be impossible to foresee someone’s behaviors, wouldn’t it? Though free will does not exist, whether the world is ready to learn this, is still a question to be answered. In an experiment, two groups of people, those who believe in free will and those who do not, were asked to solve a math test, and it was seen that people who do not believe in free will were more likely to cheat, saying that it was not a choice they made (Bear). Talking about free will, Saul Smilansky, a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa, said “We cannot afford for people to internalize the truth” because it will result in multitude committing crimes and not taking the blame on themselves (Bear).

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

In this paper, it will be argued that free will exists as a product of continued interaction between inherited biological capacities and the external environment. The present paper is concerned with finding an intermediary between free will and determinism that is based on neuroscience. The philosophical position that most closely aligns with neuroscientific evidence will be argued to be a type of compatibilism or soft determinism. The exercise of free will and deliberate action will be debated as having their origins in neural structures inherited at birth and that these neural structures provide basic capacities for free will. Specific neural structures will be argued as serving the biological basis for free will, but that these neural structures imbuing free will can change due to the agent selecting from amongst environmental influences. In attempting to conceptualize free will within neurological constraints, the present paper argues against the mereological fallacy, whereby psychological qualities cannot be attributed to the brain and its individual parts (Bennett & Hacker, 2014).

For years philosophers mauled over mankind 's free will and its connects to moral responsibility. In such discussion they have come up with multiple theories. The three I’ll address today are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism; are we products of our past unable to choose another course, or are our actions free from the chain of causality and thus our own? I believe that you can’t take these two questions as black and white. In my opinion compatibilism - which attempts to merge free will and determinism - explains our situation as humans, with a sense of moral responsibility, more clearly.

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

Compatibilism, as described by Chaffee, 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 the product of external influences or constraints” (2016, p. 160). Compatibilism can be compared to hard determinists, and has often been called soft determinism, in that both agree that all events are caused by some force. The compatibilists agree with the determinists that all human behaviors are caused by a previous event. One difference between the two is that compatibilists argue that humans can still distinguish between actions that are, and are not, external constraints. As Chaffee put it in his words, “Actions that are externally compelled-for example, as the result of threats-are