Essay on Stace's Views on Freewill

If we accept the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on deterministic grounds. Human life, as we know it, would not make much sense without the concept of freedom. In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what we

First, Stace presents is that if there is no free will then there is no morality. If a person is not free to choose what they will do then there is not a point in instructing them on what is right and what is wrong. So, if a person does not have control of their actions, how are they to be held morally accountable? Second, Stace presents that the dispute of free will is merely a semantic

Now, the first compatibilist I am going to discuss, W.T. Stace, believed that while many of our actions are free, our decisions are not uncaused. Stace holds that we are generally in control of our decisions, unless forced to do something, and are consequently in charge of our chain of actions. To put a term to this, when a person’s actions stem from their desires the act is free and this is called freedom of action. An example to help differentiate between free and

On Walter T. Stace essay; is determinism inconsistent with free will he mentions that "morality is concerned with what men ought and ought not to do. But if a man has no freedom to choose what he will do…. how can he be held responsible for his actions?'' (728). Sometimes society can push an individual to commit actions that go beyond their morals and values. Although this example can also serve on how a citizen serves society based on the situation the individual was placed in. if society wouldn't have put this individual in a position that gives little free will corruption may occur providing the society with increasing violence rates and

W.T. Stace believed that while many our actions are free, they are not completely uncaused. Additionally, many of our actions are not free. Stace holds that we are generally in control of our decisions and are consequently in charge of our chain of actions. A case Stace uses to differentiate between free and unfree actions is a person leaving the office. The version of this case where someone is acting freely is someone leaving the office to go get lunch This person is making the decision to leave and get food because he/she is hungry; therefore, this is a free act. The version of this case where someone is not acting freely is someone leaving the office because he/she is forcibly removed. This person did not have a choice in to leave the office;

Those who identify as a compatibilist believe that even though determinism is true, thus meaning that every event that occurs is determined by preceding events and/or the laws of nature, our actions can still be free. Stace is a philosopher that identifies as a compatibilist and believes that free will occurs because of internal mental states like desires. He also believes that actions that are not free are the ones that are caused by external physical forces such as the laws of nature or preceding events. Stace believes that, “acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent. Acts not freely done are those who immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent” (Stace, 378). However, Stace realizes that there are some cases in which an external physical force can cause you to have a desire that you act on therefore this is

Sartre proposes an interesting view on free will when he says, "either man is wholly determined or else man is wholly free." This quote shows us that Sartre believes that man is free to do what he wants. For Sartre, freedom is the most basic value, which renders possible all other values the way our fundamental plan precedes and grounds our small choices. In that sense freedom is the source of all values. It is not logically possible to make sense of human responsibility and notions of justice without a conception of free will. This is because it is free will that allows us as humans to choose and make the right decisions in life.

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.

Free will is apparent through our ability to rationalize and choose our actions. Complete free will is not attainable in the sense one cannot always just go out and act however they please without failing, or without a potential form of repercussion. One can always act of their own free will, it's just a matter of what may happen to them afterwards.

Then the question that arises is that do we truly have free will? Stoics, as stated before view our lives as co-existing with both nature and free will. Likewise, in Augustine’s philosophy we do have control of our wills and desires but the consequences will be whether we achieve paradise or not. Yet, I believe that in the end, there is a need to have a life like this. We can not live in a world where we do not have consequences. If there is a child who ate all their vegetables we reward them with desert likewise the child who didn’t is given no desert. Without these consequences we would not be able to learn and grow as

“Give me the sense to wonder To wonder if I'm free give me a sense of wonder To know I can be me give me the strength to hold my head up.” Personally, I believe that individuals don't really have free will in an organized and lawful society. The simple fact that individuals are influenced by law and social norms takes away a key aspect of free will from an individual. Society only has a limited amount of free will that’s inside a small window that’s framed by laws and societal expectations. In essence yes people do have free will, but if it came right down to it it’s essentially all about choice. People have the freewill to choose right from wrong.

“What we believe as Christians does (and should) affect how we live. How Christians view the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom has a direct bearing on how they respond to various issues in their lives.” For example, “[T]he missionary candidate who is having difficulty raising her support. She may believe God is closing the door to her present plans and leading her in another direction. … Another [may] conclude that he is not working hard enough to raise the money” herein lies the issue of which is correct free will or predestination, and can one concept be proven over the other.

Sartre: Man is condemned to be free. He did not give birth to himself, but once thrown into the world he is responsible for everything he does. This freedom allows him free will.

For as long as I care to remember, I have believed that there is no such thing as “free will”.

On January 13, 1948 Gandhi had declared another fast which is now known as the last fast. Gandhi said he would not break his fast until there was peace between all religions. Many people disagreed with his decisions.