The Universe Predetermined

In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that

Free will in this essay will be treated with respect to Nomological Determinism, (referred to as causal determinism/determinism); the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid, all-encompassing natural laws’. The ‘Origination Argument’ for

3. Discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James on free will and determinism?

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

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

Some proponents of free will argue that by choosing to do something, one causes oneself to act. One could have caused oneself to act in another manner, and therefore the act, although caused by that person, is still a free choice. However, that notion is held under scrutiny because a person who acts freely has no evidence that they have acted of his or her own accord. For all one knows, one’s actions and choices could have been causally determined, and although one thought one was acting out of free will, one is not. There is no definite proof to show that one’s choices are made freely. As A.J. Ayer stated in his essay, Freedom and Necessity, “…but from the fact that a man is unaware of the causes of his action, it does not follow that no such causes exist” (Ayer 272). Since there is no way of knowing if one exercises free will, determinism poses a serious threat to the concept of free thinking and free acting human beings.

Throughout this section of the class we have talked about free will and the responses through different point of views. In this paper I am going to discuss the problem of free will itself and then describe the determinist, libertarian, and the compatibilist responses to the problem and talk about some benefits and drawbacks from the different positions. Finally I will give you my output on the various responses to the problem and defend why I believe in what. I will make references from the Riddles of Existence by Earl Conee and Theodore Sider and from the lectures.

Defending Hard Determinism Against the Strongest Objections Raised Against It In this academic essay there will be a clear and defined description of both hard determinism and its eventual nemesis indeterminism. Based on these definitions there will be a personal attempt at denying hard determinism. This will be accomplished through the introduction of David Hume and his radical philosophy on causality and the relation this may have on hard determinism, as well as the various possibilities it may distinguish. Furthermore the Causal Principle will also be introduced and slandered in its incapability to provide a concrete defense for hard determinism and its potential in proposing a solution

Edward Wilson writes in his excerpt on the essay “On Free Will”, that most scientists tend to leave the subject to the philosophers. He says,

The following paper was made with the purpose of presenting an objection to Van Inwagen’s argument which states that free will and determinism are incompatible. First let’s start by giving Van Inwagen’s point of view about determinism and free will. Inwagen says that “free will requires the ability to act otherwise than we do". Determinism on the other hand says that "for every instant of time, there is a proposition that expresses the state of the world at that instant". As a result our actions and decisions are already determined.

Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher of religion, attempts to answer these questions by endorsing the Free Will Doctrine,

Throughout our whole lives we have always been taught ‘ to think before we act’, ‘think before we make a decision’, and ‘think about the consequences’. All this, to prevent us from selecting the wrong decision. However, what if we lived in a world where you could have seen where the other decisions would have lead to? To see if you had truly made the ‘right’ decision, or the wrong one. Of course, this is nowhere near possible with our current technology. Nevertheless, there is still hope lying within the Multiverse, yet to be discovered. This very thing, is a Parallel Universe. This alternate reality ‘branches off’ from our own cosmos, universe seemingly identical yet faced with many differences, large or small. However, while few scientists

Furthermore, there are three main aspects which were customarily associated with a science: metaphysical, theoretical and methodological assumptions. Under metaphysical it is believed that to gain scientific status requires the certainty that the subject matter i.e. human thought/ behaviour, is similar to that of other accepted sciences. This could then be true for Psychology, as particularly since Darwin’s suggestion of a continuity between behaviours of humans and other species, behaviour has become more scrutinised. However, this must be assumed in respect of determinism, suggesting predictions could be made. ‘Heisenbergs uncertainty principle’ suggests that when relating evidence of indeterminism within the universe to human behaviour, it proves ambiguous, and with parts of the discipline believing strongly in free will it seems difficult to establish a common ground (Valentine E.R. page 2).

Rhetorical Analysis “Is Everything Determined” Throughout history we have struggled with the question of how we evolved, and the concept of free will. Stephen Hawking renowned theoretical physicist sets out to answer these questions in his essay “Is Everything Determined?” published in 1994, in the book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. Throughout this essay Hawking struggles with this question and contemplates whether the Universe was created by God, which would lead to humans having no free will, because there would be a supervising force governing the Universe. Or if the universe and everything around us simply evolved, creating the question of where our morality comes from.

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