The Theory 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.

What if every decision you thought you were making, was hypothetically predictable prior to you being consciously aware of which option you would choose? What if your control over your actions and decisions and thus the path your life will take is an illusion? What if free will is an extremely misguided belief humans have? Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and several other disciplines have spent over two millennia, constructing hypotheses and theories, to then promptly contradict them or trump them with opposing views, with regards to the presence or lack there of, of free will. Hundreds of scientists and theorists have proposed ideas and built upon those to attempt to come up with an understanding of free will that allows for a tangible

Over time, numerous philosophers have dabbled at the concepts surrounding free will, forming their own beliefs that either relate or reject other philosophical views. Free will is defined as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. Epicurus, Stoics, and John Locke portray arguments about their beliefs on free will. Many times, each philosophical view of the three were influenced by aspects of another philosopher, especially Aristotle. Although their beliefs are unique, each philosophical view can be connected together. All three philosophical views either promote or reject the ideology of determinism referring to the issue of free will. I accept the Stoics beliefs on free will due to freedom resembling a person’s choices to do what he or she wants to do in life.

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.

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

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.

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

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.

Free Will is the capacity of acting without the pressures of fate and the ability to act because of one’s discretion. It is an idea that most believe in, because it means that you are in control

The philosophical battle of free will and determinism has been present for centuries, bringing with it a host of moral and ethical implications. However, since scientist’s production of the first recombinant DNA and its hybridization in 1972 (genome.gov) genetic determinism has taken on a new set of circumstances. “Since the 1970s, numerous authors have examined …ethical issues raised by the genetic modification of human beings” (Resnik & Vorhaus, PMC), Octavia Butler being one of them. In her imaginative science-fiction novel, Dawn, she examines the idea of how genetic engineering

I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.

In this always changing world, we all possess the extraordinary power of freewill. The ability to make a wide variety of choices depending on the situation that is presented in front of us, which induces an outcome whether it may be good or bad that is reliant on the perspective. Every single choice you make based on your judgment will affect or make a difference to almost anything that exists on this world no matter how little or big it may be. Samuel Taylor Coleridge uses imagery in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" to successfully reflect his emotions about the consequences of one's actions. A wonderful example of imagery is in lines 29 through 32 " All in a hot and copper sky, The bloody sun, at noon, Right up above the mast did stand, No bigger than the moon."

One aspect of human existence that I think is particularly interesting is the extent of control of which we have over the decisions we make. In life, there are many decisions to be made, from simple ones that seem almost subconscious to complex decisions that can take days to ponder on. There are decisions that we make that directly affect others, indirectly affect others, and decisions that we believe do not affect others, or even ourselves, at all. There are decisions that we believe do not matter and would have no impact on our existence. Two theories that shed some light on these aspects are the theory of determinism from

The Metaphysics of Free Will People tend to have a strong belief that they are able to make their own decisions and have responsibility for their actions. This idea can be described as moral responsibility and is parallel to the concept of free will. Free will attempts to answer the idea of whether or not humans have the capacity to make choices freely. In philosophy, the issue of free will is addressed in the doctrine of determinism. Determinism is the idea that all events are caused by previous events.

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