The Topic Of Free Will

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.

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.

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

A question which still puzzles many people is do we have free will or is our every decision predetermined? I believe that our every decision is based on free will because when we make the decision to do something, we risk our lives everyday doing what we want rather than just letting things happen such as fate. I think our every decision is based on free will because we decide whether we want to go out and party on a Saturday night or if we want to stay in the house. We decide whether we want to be friends with someone or if we want to keep them as enemies. We decide whether we want to have a boyfriend/girlfriend or if we want to be single and do what we want. We make decisions ourselves, and we do not let things just happen.

The term “human nature” is vague and very broad, giving many philosophers the opportunity to try and apply a meaning to it. Throughout history, theories have ranged from having complete free will as a gift from God to having no human nature at all. Two particular theories that I’d like to analyze are Sigmund Freud’s psychological view and Aristotle’s ethical view. Although both Freud and Aristotle believe that the mind plays a key role in human nature, they differ in that one believes that there is no complete rationality while the other believes that rationality is our natural function.

The question of free will is a very serious issue in the major division of philosophy, metaphysics. Whether or not humans live a life that is predetermined has been debated for a very long time. Free will is the ability to live the life you choose, how ever you choose to. If free will happens to be something that we humans do not possess, then the question of if punishment or reward is necessary is raised. If we are living a life that is predetermined people will begin to wonder whether or not people should be held morally responsible for their actions.

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

The philosopher John Hospers’ views on free will and determination go completely against the movie A Clockwork Orange. Hospers claims that our actions are “compelled” and we do not make our own free choices, but it happens unconsciously . In A Clockwork Orange the main character, Alex, has his free will taking away from him through a series of extreme and harsh experimental tactics in the dystopia that he is apart of. The government believes that the can control the thoughts and actions of their citizens and just change them.

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

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.

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.

Everyday we make choices about what we wear, what we eat, and what we do. However, are we actually making these decisions? One of the greatest debates in philosophy, and life is if we are truly free or not.  Many philosophers have made arguments that we make our own choices while others have decided that other forces outside of ourselves predetermine are choices. Universal Determinism is the theory that every occurrence in the universe is determined before it ever happened. This means that every choice you made since you woke up this morning was determined prior to ever making that decision. This poses an apparent threat to the idea that our actions are free because the thesis of Universal Determinism means we do not have free will and all the choices that we have made and will make have already been decided by a force outside of ourselves. If Universal Determinism is true all of our actions can be predicted. Freedom of action is acting in a way that you could have done differently while freedom of will is having the will to choose what you want to do. When philosophers discuss free will, they are actually questioning freedom of action; despite being a question of freedom of action, philosophers actually call it freedom of will. Philosophers have separated into two groups of debate in the conversation of free will Compatibilism and Incompatibilism. These philosophers of Compatibilism and Incompatibilism, which can be separated into Hard Determinism and Libertarianism

Baron D'holbach believed that everything that's happening in the present now is a result of an chain of events (cause and effect). He said “we are just part of the physical world bound by its physical laws.” Every prior event is a cause but before that cause there was a cause of something else and the chain just goes on forever which means people never really ever have free will do do absolutely anything. Even

“Causality” - Causality, within the context of determining the existence of free will, is the “causal link [that] determines what the future looks like.” (Rauhut, 82) In other words, it is the relationship between two or more events, in which an action is caused or influenced by a prior event. For example, within the context of my “big decision,” I am choosing between getting a traditional job or selling artwork. The causality within this scenario exists in that I grew up in an unstructured environment and have adapted to working with little structure. This predetermines my choice by influencing my preference and personal values.