Why Do Free Will Exist

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

In the study of philosophy, Free will is defined as “The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Many people wonder if they truly have free will to make their own choices, or is everything pre-determined for them in order to carry out their lifestyle. I’m sure we all wonder if our choices are correct or incorrect or if we are able to take control of our lives. Philosophers Hume and Holbach have concepts that seek to prove whether or not free will actually does exist and they both use their philosophical beliefs based on determinism in order to properly explore their concepts of free will. This paper will actively seek to explain both concepts and will expose what problems may arise from their philosophical theories of free will in relation

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

Although free will has been defined in multiple, conflicting ways, the present approach analyzes it as a psychological capacity including self-control, choices, planning, and the ability to assess and initiate things independently. These capabilities are useful for making human social life and culture possible, but they depend on a limited resource and therefore often fall short of optimal levels. Religion may be helpful to individuals and society in part because it supports both the exercise of free will and the belief in it.

I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.

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.

According to Frankfurt, “there is no more than an innocuous appearance of paradox in the proposition that it is determined, ineluctably and by forces beyond their control, that certain people have free wills and that others do not” (20). Frankfurt’s theory is purely based on the relationship between different orders of desires, instead of the origin of the desires. In other words, so long as one has the freedom to desire a particular first-order desire of his, he has the freedom of will, even though all of his desires are causally determined.

Throughout history, scientists and philosophers have pondered the question, “Do we as humans really make our own choices, or rather are our choices predetermined by some sort of natural order? Our decisions and actions may, in fact, even be the result of chemical reactions occurring in the neurons residing in our brain. We as humans are curious as to what “free will” is truly defined as. Whatever the answer, the question posed is one that will result in many different varying opinions, many of which could impact the worlds of both science and philosophy. The subject of free will vs. determinism is tackled by Scott Meyers in his novel, Off to Be the Wizard, which was released in March of 2014.

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.

In this paper, I am going to discuss and argue about free will and determinism. What is free will, and do we have it? Free will is simply the power to act with no constraint, in other words, to act freely with no one holding us down. The controversial argument of this topic is if we have free will or not. According to physical determinism, “If our brain is in a certain state, then our next move is determined. Therefore, we do not have free will” (Holbach). According to others, we do have free will. In my paper, I will talk about the views of Holbach, Stace, and Ayer concerning free will. I will then argue that Ayer has the best view because he has a more serious sense of moral responsibility than Holbach and Stace, and that his view better fits with our normal view of free will.

I cannot say exactly whether I believe that free will exists or not, but I do know that there are multiple arguments that support it and deny it. We must first determine what free will is before we can say that we are free, even in our deterministic world. Free will exists when a being, if given all other causal factors in the universe, it is able to choose more than one thing. Although, we have many uses for the word ‘freedom’, but the kind of freedom in this case would apply to someone even if they had a gun forcedly pointed to their head. Causal determination allows some freedom of the mind but not freedom from violence. Throughout this paper we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Hard Determinism and Libertarianism,

There are religious, philosophical, and scientific approaches. There are those who believe free will is present, that we can control our lives, and there are those who believe free will does not exist. I believe free will does not exist, nor does it matter if indeed, it was to exist, and this belief influences my reaction paper. The will of the human is determined by cause and effects, alongside nature vs nurture and cradle to the grave.

Free will by definition is a theological and philosophical idea referring to the ability of man to choose an action at his own accord and motive. He is also responsible for the consequences and repercussions of those actions. Many Philosophers believe that these observations are true, but, other philosophers think otherwise; although men seem free to do as they please it's a mirage. The Philosophers that deem this “free will” is false conclude that a man’s sense of freedom is influenced by a higher power or the laws of

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