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.

Their wills, which are believed to be freely gained, are actually the result of a causal chain originating from birth. The fact that humans are governed by their genes and environment means that the ability to make moral decisions as free agents is illusory. For these reasons, the hard determinist position, which is a sound, science-based theory, seems to be incompatible with the concept of free will.

They would view the life of homosexuals with a clear mind that isn’t going to judge instead of fighting against what they have been taught since birth. The gender roles teach people how to act according to their sex; if someone goes against the traditional teachings than they are viewed as outcasts. Society looks at them as a mishap. This article strengthens the Kinsey scale because it shows how subjective views can affect the lives of people for the worse. For example, the subjective bias view of Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University has affected the lives of homosexuals in several states because he:

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.

Journalist John Tierney, in his article, “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s the Only Choice,” explores the notion of free will and exhibits how belief or disbelief in free will affects an individual’s life. By posing a hypothetical situation through rhetorical questions, incorporating experimental research, and using accusatory diction towards the opposing perspective, Tierney conveys his perception that a regard for free will allows for individuals to gain a greater sense of morality and ambition, even if the notion of free will is still disputed.

At the same time, the Libertarians believe that people have “free will”, and there are no such inevitable results of those behaviors that are controlled by “free will”. Libertarianism has different meanings in different academic fields. From the general level, the libertarianism refers to people’s ability to decide whether or not to do something according to their

Several factors play an important role in the hypothesis that Christians would disagree with same-sex marriage. Regarding the poll, respondents were asked to pick the choice that best represented their stance on the legality of same-sex marriage. Respondents could choose from the following answers: “strongly disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “indifferent”, “somewhat agree”, “strongly agree”, and “undecided”. The group the hypothesis pertains to are the people who said “strongly disagree” or “disagree”. The first piece of evidence that would lead one to believe that Christians would show, to a certain degree, disagreement with legalizing same-sex marriage involves important passages in their holy book, the Bible. The Bible contains passages that both deem homosexuality as sinful, as well as affirm only marriage between man and woman. One passage that does an adequate job of displaying a view that homosexuality is sinful is located in Leviticus, which reads, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is

Among all the facts listed above, which prove that our social status is dependent on our parents’ with a 10 percent variation rate, that our genes which are inherited from our parents determine our personality and that our brain plays with our idea of past after an act is committed, to convince us that we made the decision beforehand, only this example taken from a phrase used in our daily language can be a clue to show that free will does not exist. If it existed, then it would be impossible to foresee someone’s behaviors, wouldn’t it? Though free will does not exist, whether the world is ready to learn this, is still a question to be answered. In an experiment, two groups of people, those who believe in free will and those who do not, were asked to solve a math test, and it was seen that people who do not believe in free will were more likely to cheat, saying that it was not a choice they made (Bear). Talking about free will, Saul Smilansky, a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa, said “We cannot afford for people to internalize the truth” because it will result in multitude committing crimes and not taking the blame on themselves (Bear).

In this paper, I am going to discuss and argue about free will and determinism. What is free will, and do we have it? Free will is simply the power to act with no constraint, in other words, to act freely with no one holding us down. The controversial argument of this topic is if we have free will or not. According to physical determinism, “If our brain is in a certain state, then our next move is determined. Therefore, we do not have free will” (Holbach). According to others, we do have free will. In my paper, I will talk about the views of Holbach, Stace, and Ayer concerning free will. I will then argue that Ayer has the best view because he has a more serious sense of moral responsibility than Holbach and Stace, and that his view better fits with our normal view of free will.

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.)

Numerous arguments have been presented against homosexuality, stating it is unnatural, degrades morals and is negatively influencing children. The cause for homosexuality has changed from environmental reasoning to a genetic predisposition. So, if our sexuality is not a learned behaviour but is natural, it is neither in our control to choose our sexuality nor influence others to do so. In recent years, the trend towards accepting gay marriage and families has also seen a trend of declining marriage rates, with many signifying a breakdown of morals due to an increase in gay marriage.

For instance, studies conducted by the University of Dublin show that when people are asked about why they feel a certain way in specific moral issues, people are often dumbfounded and they cannot explain the reasoning under their moral judgement other than the fact that it feels right (3). This feeling can be a result of societal norms that have conditioned a population to feel a certain way through validation and invalidation in one’s community. Conditioning such as this can lead to hate crimes and discrimination. One such example is the concept of homophobia in a society. Homophobia is a result of psychological conditioning through religion and social norms that homosexuality is immoral when in actuality it does not harm people that it does not involve. However, logically speaking, homophobia is immoral since it dehumanizes those who are not straight through invalidation and persecution. Therefore, even though homophobia checks out emotionally through social conditioning, it does not check out logically.

As an outset, we should first get a clear understanding of what “free will” actually means. “A being has free will if given all other causal factors in the universe (genetic and environmental, physical and chemical…) it nevertheless possesses the ability to choose more than one thing” (Caplan, 1997) There are many different definitions of freedom, but the kind of freedom I want to address is one where an individual can do as he or she pleases even if bound by chains to the ground. This type of freedom is freedom of the mind from causal deterministic laws, the idea that every event is dictated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. I think that the strongest argument for free will is

The realization of the homosexuality in the modern western world as a cultural, sexual and a social category has been a result of complex power relations that surround sexuality and gender. The acceptance of homosexuality in the society has met its fair share of resistance and skepticism. The view that homosexuality can be in the same league as heterosexual has led it to be viewed as a normal behavioral and moral standard (Gallagher & Baker, 2006). Inasmuch as the skeptics may not want to accept the existence of homosexuality studies show that the habit is rampant today with many gay people coming out in the open. Of interest is the political acceptance of homosexuality with passing gay rights so that it can be recognized by law. This move has given homosexuals the ability to engage in legal entities like marriage (Gallagher & Baker, 2006).

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