Various Perspectives on Free Will Essay

"Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)." Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. Kierkegaard, Soren, David F. Swenson, and Walter, Lowrie. Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Princeton: Princeton UP, for American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1941. Print. Nasseli, Andrei. "Do We Have Free Will?" Reformation21. N.p., Aug. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2015..

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

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

The debate between free will and determinism is something that will always be relevant, for people will never fully admit that we have no free will. But, while we may feel that we control what we do in life, we simply do not. The argument for free will is that individuals have full control and responsibility over their actions, and what they become in life as a whole (The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson, page 16). Determinism, on the other hand, is saying that we have no control over our actions and that everything we do in life is determined by things beyond our control (Strawson, page 7). After analysis of The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson and Freedom and Necessity by A. J. Ayer,

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

Nevertheless, determinism exposes free will to a wide number of vulnerabilities. In each of these

Picture yourself in line in the cafeteria, you have two main dishes to choose from: pizza or a plate of fierce-looking meatloaf, so you decide to go with pizza. So was your decision based off of free will or was this decision predetermined? To fully understand whether your actions resulted from free will or determinism, we must first define each. Determinism is the idea that everything happens due to a cause or a determinant, which is something that can be observed or measured. To put it simply, determinism does not mean that the future can be predicted. Rather, it is a prediction of the possible outcomes that may occur. To help predict outcomes we use facts, knowledge, and previous experiences (Ott, par. 4). Free will, on the other hand,

Are we in control of our life decision? Or is our life just a script we follow? The question of free will has stumped philosophers for years, in which philosophers have disagreed on the conclusion. There are several perspectives on this issue, the most popular of which are determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. By discussing the similarities and differences of these perspectives, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, we can determine which of these is most accurate.

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

On the other hand, also defined by Google, Determinism is “the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.” Fundamentally, you do not have a choice in your actions as it was predetermined from your start.

Belief in free will is a concept practiced throughout history amongst many societies worldwide (Sarkissian et al., 2010 as cited in Baumeister & Monroe, 2014). Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer and Turner (2005) define free will as the ability to control your actions independent of fate or external factors. Recently, many studies have been performed investigating how levels of free will beliefs shape how we act, think and view the world.

204). It argues that casual determinism and free will cannot coexist, and that casual determinism is the only viable explanation for human actions (p. 204). This theory would eliminate the various stressors of life today because responsibility for one’s actions would no longer be needed. An individual could commit a crime and then claim that they did not have a choice because it was predetermined. If this were true then punishment should not exist and “the saint should be no more praised than the criminal should be [imprisoned]”

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.

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.

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).