What Would It Entail?

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.

Their wills, which are believed to be freely gained, are actually the result of a causal chain originating from birth. The fact that humans are governed by their genes and environment means that the ability to make moral decisions as free agents is illusory. For these reasons, the hard determinist position, which is a sound, science-based theory, seems to be incompatible with the concept of free will.

Over the course of time, in the dominion of philosophy, there has been a constant debate involving two major concepts: free will and determinism. Are our paths in life pre-determined? Do we have the ability to make decisions by using our freedom of will? While heavily subjective questions that have been answered many different authors, philosophers, etc., two authors in particular have answered these questions very similarly. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher from the 18th century, argues in his essay “Of Liberty and Necessity” that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that they can both be accepted at the same time without being logically incorrect. Alike Hume, 20th century author Harry G. Frankfurt concludes in his essay “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” that the two major concepts are compatible. These two authors are among the most famous of Compatibilists (hence the fact that they believe free will and determinism are compatible ideas) in philosophical history. The question that then arises in the realm of compatibilism particularly, is one dealing with moral responsibility: If our paths in life are not totally pre-determined, and we have the ability to make decisions willingly (using free will), then how do we deem an individual morally responsible for a given decision? Frankfurt reaches the conclusion that we are held morally responsible regardless of

But, since intuition depends on who we are and what we are made of, things that we do not control, free will is not present and with that neither is moral responsibility (Strawson, page 17). Everything we do is based off of what we are made of in terms of our mind and rationale, and what we are made of is a product of external things that we do not control, so it must be true that everything we are, and everything we do, is not determined by our own free will. In order for us to truly have free will, it would require us to be our own creators, products of our own thoughts, which in itself is impossible due to our understanding of human procreation. By no means does this suggest that humans cannot be punished for evil actions, or that humans are being forced to do what they do, but rather that we do not have as much control over what we do in our lives like supporters of free will would believe. Free will is not present, so moral responsibility isn’t, either, for determinism proves to be the argument more worthy belief after comparison to free will. I did not make a free willed decision to title this paper, I did not even make the choice to take this class, for what I have been convinced is humorous, clever or for my own best interests in life as a whole is completely out of my control, and with that so are my

Each action we take as humans determines our personal character and ethical theories guide us and teach us right from wrong (Mosser, 2013).

The theory that I find true to the true nature of moral responsibility and its relation to human freedom and determinism would be compatibilism. Compatibilism is the claim that we are both determined and that we have moral responsibility (Lawhead 120).

Exposition: In Galen Strawson’s essay “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,” he presents the Basic Argument and argues it proves we cannot be held truly morally responsible for our actions, which is an invaluable argument in the free will problem. The Basic Argument is seen as an infallible argument. It claims that people are who they are based on the environment that they’ve been born. On the seventh page of the essay, Strawson breaks the ten part argument into five simplified premises. First, it is undisputable that

Determinism is the doctrine, that every event, as well as human actions is determined by causes that are independent to the will. From determinism, two opposing views were identified. The incompatibilists view that determinism implies no free will, or the compatibilists view that determinism still allows for free will. The incompatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken determinism as use of a scapegoat, identifying determinism to infer that human beings are unable to have any free will, thus no moral responsibility for taken actions. Whilst the compatibilist philosophical thinkers have taken a softer view of determinism, holding the view that an agents actions are pre-determined, although the agent is still to be held morally responsible for the agent’s voluntary actions. Determinism, as argued for the compatibilists, allows for an agent to hold free will and share equal responsibility for chosen actions.

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

1.) “Moralities built on the image of the independent, autonomous, rational individual largely overlook the reality of human dependence and the morality for which it calls.” (Camp, 2011:48)

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.

Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility talks about the principle of alternate possibilities. The principle of alternate possibilities states that someone is morally responsible if they could have chosen to do otherwise. People who believe in free will are very supportive of the principle Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion. The principle of alternate possibilities, moral responsibility, and free will are all involved in this paper written by Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt states that “its exact meaning is a subject of controversy, particularly concerning whether someone who accepts it is thereby committed to believing that moral responsibility and determinism

I assert that for a moral system to be necessary and applicable, there must exist a moral agent who possesses both the desire and the ability to choose. By denoting certain actions or ways of being as better, a moral system implies that there are also other potential actions and ways of being that are worse. The individual must choose between them. Without this element of choice, an action has no moral qualification. For example, a computer acts, but it does not choose its action. Consequently, while a computer can be judged better or worse in its ability to carry out an action, it cannot be judged responsible for the action. Rather, the person who uses or creates the computer is in fact responsible, for it is that person who chooses for it to act in a particular way. In a moral system, choice, responsibility, and the viability of judgment are linked inextricably.

Morality is an important component of a human being because it helps shape the ethical foundation that every human being has. Whether to be good, evil, honest, or deceitful are just some of the traits morality helps us develop. Thus, it is evident that morality is a crucial component of a human being. However, what ultimately drives moral action? This question is debated and investigated against many philosophers, a few of them being Thomas Hobbes, Frans de Waal, and David Hume.