The Metaphysical Issue Of Free Will

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.

1: Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way.”(3)

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

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.

The issue of free will has been a subject of much debate for centuries among philosophers, thinkers, and even mystics. The reason why discussing if free will exists or not is so important is because if its existence is disproven, it would have several implications in many fields of the human life and even on the purpose and meaning, or lack of thereof, of human life itself. The non-existence of free will also have an effect on how we perceive, and probably act, in regards to the accountability of a person’s actions, impulses, and motives along with how the judicial system is structured given the change in status quo of the way we think about the intricate mechanism of how we operate as human beings and as a society in general. If we do not have free will, then questions that are societally-related such as “are we accountable for our actions?” and religiously-related such as “is salvation and heaven and hell predetermined for every person? And if that is so, how is it that such an unfairness would come about from a perfect God?” can greatly impact our own humanity, core values, and religious

In the following essay I will describe the problem of free will and explain several different responses to the problem. These responses will be derived from the determinist, libertarian, and compatibilist views. I will end the essay by arguing that the compatibilist view seems to best address the problem of free will, but does not necessarily solve it.

There are two main philosophical positions, and they include determinism and indeterminism. Determinism holds the idea that every state of affairs including human decisions and actions are ultimately determined by external causes beyond their will. Indeterminism holds a different perspective that every single event is wholly determined by antecedent causes. It is simply the opposite of determinism because it holds that if one event is undetermined, then determinism is false. Indeterminism supports the free will of all events (Salles).

A human simply cannot make a choice that exceeds beyond the physical or divine necessity or even causal law. Individuals must realize that the will is not free and is prone to the laws of cause and effect. Choices of yes or no, right or left, up or down appear

Free will, the capability to choose, act, or think individually, exists in all human beings; whether one would like to acknowledge it or not. The idea of having a choice in one’s own life is empowering; whereas the feeling or thought of not having a say one’s life is just as demeaning. But, this belittling feeling people impose on themselves is voluntary. We all do have a choice, whether we believe it’s there or not.

There are many different views and opinions about whether or not people truly have free will, the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate, or if it is just an illusion. Humanists, Behaviourists, Positive Psychologists, Cognitive Psychologists, and Evolutionary Psychologists all have different thoughts about the question of free will. An example of this is that B.F. Skinner, a behaviourist, and Albert Bandura, a Cognitive Psychologist, believe very different things about the idea of free will.

hat had he done to deserve a fate like this? I can’t bear all this at one time.

In this paper I argue that humans do not have free will. I support this conclusion with two principle reasons: free will does not come into play when people meet a sudden and untimely death, not to mention, people have no say in the matter of how they are born.

The concept of free will is a large factor in decision-making. A person makes many good and bad decisions in a day, which may not affect them in the short run but is most likely to impact them in the long run. Free will shapes a person because of the affect it has on a person’s life through their decisions. Free will is the reason for any conflicts a person including myself faces in life, decision do not always benefit the person. Free will heavily impacts large and small decisions I make in life on a daily basis.

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