The problem 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.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.

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

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.

The problem of free will is the question whether humans truly have free will or not. Some believe in determinism, which is the belief that everything is already pre-determined and is controlled by a constant chain of causes. Others believe in free will which in its philosophical definition, that one must at least make some choices out of one own desires without constraint or pressure from outside sources. One prominent view of free will is compatibilism; which is the idea that even though they believe determinism is in fact true, some actions can still be free as they can act based on one’s own desires, also known as soft

The problem of freewill concerns whether it is possible to retain agency in a world where events are necessitated. For the sake of clarity, my definition of freewill is “the power of acting or not acting without constraint”. Universal causation or hard determinism (both terms I shall use interchangeably) is the belief that “events in the future are fixed, as a matter of natural law, by the past”. Indeterministic theories such as libertarianism preserve freewill by maintaining that not all events are determined by preceding causes. Both indeterminism and determinism are incompatibilist theories as they imply that universal causation erodes the prospect of freewill. Compatibilist theories, like agent-causalism assert that causation doesn’t necessarily mean we do not have free will.

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.

In fact, we do not know which of our decisions and behavior result from our free will or from our freedom of choice. Because we do not understand the nature of the forces that managed our lives. our Lack of understanding of these forces gives rise to the feeling that we have free will. actually we have the freedom to choose only one thing, except that everything we do dictates to us and is controlled by external and internal factors.

First we will break down the definition of free will, second, how moral responsibility and free will accompany one another throughout human life, and lastly why free will is important in one’s life.

The Free Will Problem presents three different theses that, upon first glance, seem both intuitive and reasonable as long as they are considered independently. It is not possible to entertain all three theses together while maintaining any level of consistency. The problem, therefore, is in determining which of the three theses to discard.

Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That

There are two main philosophical positions, and they include determinism and indeterminism. Determinism holds the idea that every state of affairs including human decisions and actions are ultimately determined by external causes beyond their will. Indeterminism holds a different perspective that every single event is wholly determined by antecedent causes. It is simply the opposite of determinism because it holds that if one event is undetermined, then determinism is false. Indeterminism supports the free will of all events (Salles).

This essay is a critical examination of the notion of free will, specifically with respect to the doctrine of libertarianism. In it, I discuss the weaknesses associated with the libertarian position. I argue that libertarianism is unsubstantiated both empirically and conceptually. To be clear, this essay is not meant to ultimately disprove Libertarianism, (I do not believe such can be accomplished due to the nature of the proposition); rather, I simply mean to show why it is unreasonable to accept libertarianism with the evidence and argumentation currently available.

People have free will when they are in control of their actions. People who are not in control of their actions are not morally responsible for what they do. So treating people as moral agents worthy of praise or blame for what they do requires that they have free will.