Support and Contradictions of Hard Determinism and Libertarianism

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

The question of free will has been a never ending discussion by philosophers and ordinary everyday people for decades. In this paper I will be analyzing the case of Ethan couch, a 16 year old boy accused of manslaughter under the influence of alcohol, from the three different viewpoints of free will; a hard determinist, a compatibilist and a libertarian. Then I will discuss which view I agree best with under the specific conditions of this case.

Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions.

There are 3 basic views that can be taken on the view of determinism, (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will.In this paper I am going to be defending the view compatibilism, specifically W. T. Stace’s view of compatibilism.

In the study of philosophy, Free will is defined as “The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Many people wonder if they truly have free will to make their own choices, or is everything pre-determined for them in order to carry out their lifestyle. I’m sure we all wonder if our choices are correct or incorrect or if we are able to take control of our lives. Philosophers Hume and Holbach have concepts that seek to prove whether or not free will actually does exist and they both use their philosophical beliefs based on determinism in order to properly explore their concepts of free will. This paper will actively seek to explain both concepts and will expose what problems may arise from their philosophical theories of free will in relation

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents. In the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. W.T Stace, wanted to prove that the hard determinist definition of “free” was incorrect. He posed that free does not mean random, but that our acts are casually determined in a particular fashion. There must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad.

When I wake up in the morning, I have a set list of obligations for that day. Reasoning and habit dictate that I will follow through that set list, yet I am my own being and have control over my actions. I have free will and can choose to sleep in bed all day or get up and do my chores. While there are some situations where the consequences are out of our control, we still have the ability to decide when opportunities arise. Either extreme of this argument has its fatal flaws, as the determinist see everything as the product of a choice made long ago, and the libertarianist claims we have free will no matter how dire the situation is. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me, it is the difference between the two in an argument without a solution.

Many times I find myself sitting and wondering whether I am fully free or not. I wake up every single morning and do the same routine, which is eat breakfast, go to class or work, do homework, go to the gym, shower, and then go to bed. Does this truly mean I am free? There are a lot of questions that you can ask yourself while following a routine. Is this really the path I should have taken? Were my choices determined by external factors? Determinism is the thesis that an any instant there is only one physically possible future. Robert Blatchford and Walter Terence Stace, two philosophers, both agree that determinism is true, although they have two different views on whether this means that people are free or not. Blatchford believes that everything is predestined. Stace on the other hand, believes that a person chooses what they do because of free will. In this essay I am going to discuss both of the philosophers’ views more in depth and why I favor Stace’s view over Blatchford’s.

Hard determinism claims all the actions of human beings or consequences of events are determined by external conditions, with such conditions satisfied there will be no choice of the results available any time. Spinoza, the philosopher who stood for Hard determinism was convinced that no free wills were available for anything in the universe. Those “Free will” existed in people’s mind were built on illusions, since they had ignored the actual causes to them. The hard determinism could apply to everything we neither might encountered in the past nor in present time. But I think the laws were found or formed by ourselves since the evolutions of the human societies in thousands years, it 's not correct to say that no choices are ever made by ourselves. And the key point is that most of the causal laws were found through scientific methods, but sciences has enhanced our power on predicting and even changing the progress that will result in a different end by discovering more causal laws as time passes.

Hard determinist argue that all human actions are casually determined and therefore we act freely and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. As an example Bob and Tom are stuck in a room. In one hand, Bob has chocolate cake and in the other hand, he has an apple, Bob is offering him one. Tom was given a choice to either choose the chocolate cake or the apple and he chose the chocolate cakes. To Tom, in his mind, he would say that he chose the chocolate cake on his own free will. If he wanted to, he could have chosen the apple, nothing forced him to pick the chocolate cake, he chose it because he wanted it, and he was free to choose either. A hard determinist would say that his past events made him chose the chocolate cake. Maybe as a child, he was given the sweet sugary treat more often the healthy fresh apple and because of that reason, he

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

Some libertarian might argue back that Person A had free will at the moment when he/she killed person B. However, this would not be an effective objection toward my argument. According to the libertarians, human as free moral agents, can make their own decisions and are not subject to the will or determination of another. A person do not have free will because given any situation they have limited options to decide from and often none they are willing to do. If they do not will to do certain things and yet are forced or somehow manipulated to do an unwanted action it would not be considered as free will. With this view we can skeptically analyze the situation where person A killed person B. For instance, when person A killed person B we can clearly see that it was not Person A’s will to kill person B. So here, although

The concept of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism is truly trying to explain if we are free and if so how much. Some of us believe that we are the masters of our fate, our soul while others believe our destiny is predetermined and that we are bound to a certain set goal in life. The concepts of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism try to help aid in that discussion and help enlighten us on what we believe is the correct ideology. It is therefore extremely important to define what each of these three concepts mean before comparing and contrasting the various arguments that each present.

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