Various Perspectives on Free Will Essay

Nasseli, Andrei. "Do We Have Free Will?" Reformation21. N.p., Aug. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2015..

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

Many believe that the world is largely determined but we can still act freely as our behaviour is not predictable. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with hard determinism as he believed that ‘man chooses freely, not out of necessity’. Although Aquinas and others that criticise hard determinism and disagree with the hard determinist views, would still agree with hard determinists in that free will and determinism are incompatible, but would argue that we have free will but our lives are not determined. This view that free will and determinism are incompatible but it is free will that exists, not determinism, is also supported by libertarians.

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.

But detailed examination has demonstrated that all fundamental particles present totally random reaction at the atomic level. Einstein assumed until his dying day that a unrevealed reason for the perceived indeterministic behavior of quantum particles would one day be found. In a famous quote of his, he said: “God does not play with dice.” However, the following positions that exist today prove the flaws of determinism: 1) observed evidence supports the idea that life is mainly composed of microscopic particles which act randomly, statistical laws; 2) a hypothesis has been shown which ties such mathematical laws to large-scale (macroscopic) patterns which contrarily appear causal, and 3) current quantum theory is the hugely accurate of all scientific theories. The second challenge pushes the empirical evidence for cause-and-effect itself. It describes a cause to be X; determine an effect to be Y, and let L be the hypothesized causal rule which relates X and Y. X must also lead Y in time. If we observe that X always points to Y, then we usually suggest L. X affects Y if and only if L is a causal reason. The third challenge to determinism is not subject on either of the past two challenges. Determinism assumes that there is, at least in principle, the possibility

The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic

Determinism is “the view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world” (Chaffee 173), which would point to the idea that we do not have free will. Those who support the

5). Essentially, if determinism exists, humans have no freedom of choice in their life and all actions of behavior are already decided for them and can be predicted. For example, in the case of determinism, it could be said that a child born into a family of violent parents will undoubtedly grow up to be violent as well due to observation and genetics (McLeod, 2013). However, this argument falls short because while it may be true that a child with abusive or violent parents is much more likely to grow up and act in the same manner for hereditary or child rearing reasons, that child still has the option to choose not to travel down the path and seek help. Eric Fromm, a noted Neo-Freudian, states that

A common challenge to free will is determinism. “Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event,

Determinism is our conscience that is predetermined how we become. Boss says, “We are nothing more than the products of our environment or our genetic inheritance” (Boss, 2014, p.80).

Free will is the idea that humans have the ability to do what they desire without any restrictions or constraints. However the issue with free will is that people have different interpretations and tolerance levels when it comes to seeing how free they really are. David Hume believes that the nature of free will is ‘the most contentious question of metaphysics’.

In the presence of ambiguity and external influence of actions it arises the question does the self-have free will? Or is it shackled to determinism? In the state of investigation, the notion of “free” is objectively false, man is does not have the ability to do what he wishes outside of the laws of nature. Although this is true, nevertheless, he has the ability to generate imagination and new ideas at his own expense, despite the neurochemistry that provides him the power to do so. Thus, considering the tenet of constancy and contingency, there is a mutual coexistence. Man does not have in a sense, free will and is not a puppet of nature. Instead, have limited will in the confinements of society and biology, in various circumstances, to the extent consciousness can produce. Therefore, every thought, perception, and actions are not completely free or determined but based on the amount of control.

In this paper I argue that humans do not have free will. I support this conclusion with two principle reasons: free will does not come into play when people meet a sudden and untimely death, not to mention, people have no say in the matter of how they are born.

A definition of free will, as we have seen, can be misunderstood and easily distorted. For the purpose of this essay free will, will be defined as the ability to chose, express ones feelings, emotions, or actions unconditionally.

Philosophers have long considered the question of whether or not we are in control of our fate or if it is determined by factors outside ourselves. Are we free? Determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism are three different philosophical approaches to answering this question.