The Relevence 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.

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.

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.

Although free will has been defined in multiple, conflicting ways, the present approach analyzes it as a psychological capacity including self-control, choices, planning, and the ability to assess and initiate things independently. These capabilities are useful for making human social life and culture possible, but they depend on a limited resource and therefore often fall short of optimal levels. Religion may be helpful to individuals and society in part because it supports both the exercise of free will and the belief in it.

The idea about free will and fate is still unsolved and debatable throughout the world. Some claim that humans have their own power to create their own destiny, however, others argue that they are inescapable victims of fate. The novel, Things Fall Apart, portrays the relationship between human’s determination to succeed and his or her own fate by describing Okonkwo as a tragic figure. While Okonkwo believes that he can overcome his fate through his hard work, Chinua Achebe reveals that fate is a powerful, inevitable event in the novel.

Recall: In “The Case Against Free Will” the authors present several claims: 1) The universe is a huge deterministic system where all events are result of prior causes. 2) Human actions are shaped by genetic determinism and environmental determinism. 3) All behaviors and actions of men are triggered by genetic make-up and social conditioning; thus, man has no free will. 4.)

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.

Does free will exist? This question has been asked by many generations and is still trying to be proven to this day. I believe free will may never be proven to exist or not, but everyone has an opinion on the topic of the existence of free will. Founded on the probability that free will does or does not exist, determines whether a person is found right or wrong for their actions. To say that free will is causally determined, would be to say that no man is guilty for what they have done. In opposition, if I was to say that I did something according to my own free will which is meant to imply that I could have acted otherwise, would be to say that I would be held morally responsible for my actions. I believe that free will is only believed in by the type of person you are and how you were raised.

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

There are many great philosophical ideas and questions that are known and of course unknown. One of the questions that really enticed my interest was the question of whether or not we have free will. I myself was once a believer of people having free will and doing what I want was my choice and my choice alone. However, after careful consideration and lectures I have been reversed in how I believe in free will. Is there any free will though? Many people would say yes there is and of course there are some who believe that free will is a fallacy and not to be believed. Whether or not there is free will is yet to be determined but what we have to go on and by is from philosophers and every person who has their two cents to fill in. In

A Clockwork Orange demonstrates the philosophically issues of free will and determinism through how the main character was treated in the movie. It also addresses important issues such as ethics, philosophy of the mind, free will and determinism, and the problem of perception. Philosophers such as John Hospers, B.F. Skinner, and Jean-Paul Sartre have different views on the issue through their theories of how individuals are or are not responsible for the free will choices that they make in life. The main character in the movie was a very violent , and reckless person. He participated in sinful acts such as being a gang member, raping women, being involved in fights, etc. These actions resulted in him being sent to prison and eventually being brainwashed into doing things out of his character. The three philosophers have very different interpretations of how the main character should have been dealt with and the reasonings behind his actions.

Some people believe that no matter what a person does in their life, it will ultimately have no effect on the outcome ofa it. Existentialists find this to be true because they believe that no matter what they ever do, they will always die. Existentialists link the inevitability of death to the idea that there is no higher power. Additionally, existentialists hold the belief that no one should allow society to control how they live their life. Writer Albert Camus uses many existentialist themes his works like The Stranger and “The Guest”. The protagonists in both stories demonstrate existentialist beliefs in their actions. As a result, many existentialist ideas can be seen throughout out both novels. Camus uses the paradox of free will in order to illustrate the inevitability of death for everyone as well as the idea that in order to obtain free will, a person must reject society and face exile.

There are eight theories in our psychology book and each has a different perspective on free will. According to the biological perspective we are influenced by our DNA, genetic makeup and hormones. Thus, in the advertisement the guy is saying his pre-determined genetic makeup is to blame. However, someone that believed in the humanistic perspective would agree says a person sitting in court is there because of his or her own actions. I tend to practices the cognitive perspective where my thinking affects the way I feel and behave. In addition, I can relate to the behavioral perspective that states how events in your immediate environment influence your behavior including the people. It seems like when a person is in a negative mode it is

The difference is that our choices and actions are largely “determined to occur as a function of our particular psychological makeup and tendencies, and/or mental events and processes that occur beyond the level of conscious awareness and over which we have no or very little control” (Williams & Arrigo, 2008, p.51). For me, this is the most influential factor as we are molded by so many attributes throughout our lives that are not in our control. Under psychological determinism, one is molded at a very early age through the interactions with their parents, family members, educationally and functionally. Ogletree and Archer (2011) argue that a person’s personality is developed at such an early age that it sets our life course more-over, it develops permanent traits that dictate how we think, feel and choose. Similarly, if psychological factors are essentially out of our control, much like biological factors, does it make one any less capable of being held accountable for their actions for something that they had not ability to control? We will explore that

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.