The Pros And Cons Of Universal Determinism

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.

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

There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are also others who believe we are servants of cosmic destiny, and that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment. The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes, and everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Therefore, according to this statement, man is not free.

As humans, free will is something we commonly assume we have. When evaluating what free will is, we become less certain. David Hume calls it “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” In simplistic terms, free will is having the ability to determine your own plan of action. There is a relationship between free will and freedom of action and causal determinism that must be evaluated to have a complete understanding of free will. There are compatibilist views that believe in free will and incompatibilist views that imply there is no free will. Free will is also related to both theological determinism and logical determinism.

The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to

The Classical Compatibilist believes that there is no conflict between determinism and free will; therefore, free will and determinism are compatible. Thus, Kane argues, if there is no conflict between free will and determinism, then “the age-old problem of free will is resolved in one fell swoop” (12). In determining if free will and determinism are compatible, philosophers first ask what we mean when we say that a choice is ordinarily free. Generally, the consensus among compatibilists is that we are free if we have the power or ability to make a choice (Kane, 13). Of course, the conditions of power and ability depend on there being no constraints or impediments to your decision-making. Kane explains

Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a

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.

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 philosophy of determinism states that everything humans do are determined by the previous action and the causal law of nature. Determinism believes that humans are no control over their action, therefore there is no free will, and nobody is responsible for their action. There are several responses to the philosophy of determinism including libertarianism, compatibilism, and fatalist

Compatibilism is right in the middle of both the other two theories of free will. They believe that events are determined by prior events just like the hard determinist do, but they do also believe in free will like libertarians. In every situation prior events shape the present or future events. Every time we think of a reason to do something this is because of our prior events that caused us to think one way or another. But then how can we have free will? We can have free will by the decisions we make. For example, if you are thirsty, you may drink water or milk. Prior events have caused you to be thirsty, but what you chose to drink or when is free will.

Do I have free will, or is every action I make predetermined? This question has concerned me for a long while. It has been the topic of many family dinner conversations, a topic of research, and a question in many prayers. I believe that this question concerns many people, since finding an answer has been the source of much literature, thinking, and religion. I have, after much thought, arrived at the conclusion of Soft Determinism - the Principle of Universal Causality, that for everything that exists or happens there is a cause, is true, but this principle is compatible with the Condition of Free Action. By Condition of Free Action I mean that a person is in control of his own actions (is the source of them) and

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.

This is the voluntariness argument, in the fact that you make a choice of your actions, whilst still being determined. The incompatibilist view is one that states that if determinism is true, then there can not be any form of of free choice. i do not believe that voluntariness and soft determinism allow for us to be free; whilst we may feel and have

One way of approaching the possible social and ethical consequences of determinism, should it be definitively proven, is to analyze the behavior of devoutly religious individuals who believe God's will supersedes their own, compared with the behavior of individuals influenced by determinism who believe their own free will is nonexistent. Religion in itself shares several key characteristics with determinism, the main differentiating factor being forgiveness from a higher power. Without this guarantee of forgiveness, the social and ethical ramifications of a deterministic future that supersedes religious beliefs are significant. Furthermore, operating under the lens of Antonio Damasio's theory of the three layers of consciousness and self,