The Master Of Their Destiny

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 debate between free will and determinism is something that will always be relevant, for people will never fully admit that we have no free will. But, while we may feel that we control what we do in life, we simply do not. The argument for free will is that individuals have full control and responsibility over their actions, and what they become in life as a whole (The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson, page 16). Determinism, on the other hand, is saying that we have no control over our actions and that everything we do in life is determined by things beyond our control (Strawson, page 7). After analysis of The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson and Freedom and Necessity by A. J. Ayer,

Compatibilism, in theory, is a world where everything is deterministic but accepts the fact that we have free will. David Hume summarized free will as, some actions are determined by internal interactions. Our internal thought process and physical needs are presumed to allow one to choose anything one may desire. He also stated that, other actions are determined by external constraints. Meaning the choices people make using

Compatibilism is the idea that determinism is true, every event in the world is caused, and that free will still exists. Stace defends this view by saying the problem is the definition of free will. The current definition of what free will is a completely and wholly uncaused action. However this obviously would be completely

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.

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

One of the main questions that we face is whether or not, we as humans have genuine freedom. Are we free to make our own choices? Do we decide what happens in our lives in the future? Or are our lives set pathways in which we have no say at all? Are all our choices already decided? In other words, do we have free will or are our actions pre-determined, or both? Hard determinists, libertarians and soft determinists all set out to provide answers to these questions, holding different views on whether or not free will and determinism are compatible. Both hard determinists and libertarians believe that free will and determinism are incompatible but hard determinists

The third key term is compatibilism. Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the belief that free will and determinism can coexist. More specifically, while external forces, such as upbringing, and internal forces, such as personal desires, have influence on one’s actions, one still has the ability to make the choice (holding that they are not being physically forced to do something). For example, Jane is invited to a party. Her parents taught her that drinking has many negative repercussions but on the other hand, Jane has been overwhelmed and kind of wants to go out. Jane chooses to not attend the party. According to compatibilism, while Jane’s decision was influenced by her upbringing and by her personal desire, she still ultimately had the freedom of choice and chose to not go.

The compatibilist, on the other hand, would reject the argument. While the compatibilist would say that the first premise asserting the truth of determinism is true, they would likely attack the fifth and sixth premises. According to them, the fifth premise is assuming something that may not be necessarily true: because determinism is true, if someone does not have control over the laws of nature or the past, then it is logically entailed (in other words, necessary with the given premises) that they have no control over their future actions. Because they would reject premise five, they would have to reject premise 6, as it follows from premise 5.

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.

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.

With freedom comes true responsibility. What you do depends on who you are and who you are depends on your genetics and earlier experiences which human beings have no control and are not responsible of. You start to gain responsibility for who you are by your later actions. His idea that everything depends on your genetics and early experience plays a role. (4,2) Even with that it wont be able to restore your responsibility because when something is random it is uncaused. This is why human beings are not responsible for their own actions. An example of moral responsibility is if I had to choose between something. (4,4) I could be walking into the mall where I have the exact amount of money to buy the pair of shoes I needed to match my dress for a party. While walking in I was approached by a homeless man asking for money. I have to make my decision to walk right past the man and buy the shoes or give him my money. This idea I do not have the freedom to choose and I am ultimately responsible for the decision I make. A free agent can have irresponsible ultimate responsibility. They are able to believe in moral rights and wrongs, while still being able to deny the coherence of punishment and reward.

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.

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