Why Do We Have 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.

There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.

Are we free thinking creatures? One question is usually on the minds of anybody who has ever had that thought; do we have free will or is everything determined by fate? Its my personal belief that you can't have one without the other. Your fate is determined before you are ever born,but it’s your decisions and choices that ultimately decide how you read that fate. Macbeth, The Odyssey, and Oedipus are all works that show how one’s fate is reached using free will.

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.

When it comes to free will scientists fall into three different groups: metaphysical determinists, neuroscientists, and compatibilists. Metaphysical determinists believe that decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transferred from one brain cell to another. Therefore, when discussing the topic of free will, metaphysical determinists are free will deniers, known as libertarian incompatibilists. Since making decisions without these electrical and chemical impulses is impossible, all of our choices are determined for us. Neuroscientists believe that there is some sort of neurobiological gap between reason and action and that “there is an irreducible non-Humean self which makes a reason effect by acting on it” (Banja) if we are to be free. However neuroscientists have found no room in the human nervous system for this noumenal self or gap, so there is no scientific evidence of humans having free will. Compatibilists believe they are the authors of their actions and can be held responsible for their actions and decisions. Since we have the ability to control the core decisions that determine who we are-- “such as persons with chemical dependency disorders enrolling

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.

A question which still puzzles many people is do we have free will or is our every decision predetermined? I believe that our every decision is based on free will because when we make the decision to do something, we risk our lives everyday doing what we want rather than just letting things happen such as fate. I think our every decision is based on free will because we decide whether we want to go out and party on a Saturday night or if we want to stay in the house. We decide whether we want to be friends with someone or if we want to keep them as enemies. We decide whether we want to have a boyfriend/girlfriend or if we want to be single and do what we want. We make decisions ourselves, and we do not let things just happen.

Genetics play a huge part in who we are. But we also have free will. -Aidan Quinn Basically this quote is saying how we are raised in the home determines a big factory of how discipline we are however we still must take into consideration that we are still held accountable for our action regardless. Although how we were raised in the home play a major role with the choices we make in our entire lives as an individual. I do believe that morals have a strong factor in free will and determinism. Homes that teach morals and values in life have a strong factor in with their social behavior skill.

Free will is one of the great debates among humans. What is it and do we even have it are two common questions. Freedom is not always easy to define but there is one compelling version of free will. I believe that humans are not truly free, they have free will but much of their lives are determined by other external causes because of the dual nature of decisions. First I will argue what the theory of compatibilist is and why it is the most reasonable. Then I will look at the moral responsibility someone has with this view and its opposing argument.

Although in the past, technologies such as brain scans and the field of neuroscience and neurobiology were not at our disposal, scientists have now made use of them to unravel the subject of free will with a more detailed analysis which goes beyond mere philosophical guessing. By measuring brain reactions, scientists have been able to know that human-made decisions are made anywhere from six to seven seconds before the person becomes aware of the choice he wants to make (“What a Brain Scan Can Tell Us about Free Will?” 5). If our decisions are already made before they come to our awareness, in my opinion there is no such thing as real free will, even though we may have the illusion of

Does free will truly exist? Or is free will simply a construct created by humans? A plethora of professionals that study metaphysics have debated the controversial topic on just what exactly the human mind is capable of.

We live in a world that believes we have free will. Free, being the idea that we have the right of free choice in how we act. Let us assume that we choose our own behavior and we are self determined; free will vs. determinism, determinism: being the belief that all things, including human behavior, are determined. We look at the choices we make in our life and morality. Philosophers have been questioning this for several years; it begs the question if one believes in free will, not saying that the behavior of humans is random or uncaused but, the belief that we as human beings believe that to an extent one will have control of one’s actions. Factors of external and internal events will play a role on what actions they will take. Free will is having the freedom to choose and having the ability to be determined by anything to act in a certain

Facts state that we are biological creatures made up of molecules that adhere to the laws of physics. If science is as reputable as we make it out to be, then the regularity of those laws determines how every single molecule in the known universe acts. As a population, humans are merely constructs of one vital organ, the brain- a supercomputer capable of naming itself. And this goes without saying that the human brain (the organ designated as doing the choosing in our everyday decisions) is made up of these exact same molecules. Everything humans think, do, or say, must come down to the behavior of these molecules according to the laws they follows. The concept of free will is based upon an illusion that people can choose their actions; however that is not the case. Due to the fact that the brain is composed of chemicals, neurons, and molecules that are subject to the law of physics, an individual’s actions become the result of the chemical and molecular changes within the brain. These changes are based on the biological makeup of the individual and the environmental factors the individual

“Give me the sense to wonder To wonder if I'm free give me a sense of wonder To know I can be me give me the strength to hold my head up.” Personally, I believe that individuals don't really have free will in an organized and lawful society. The simple fact that individuals are influenced by law and social norms takes away a key aspect of free will from an individual. Society only has a limited amount of free will that’s inside a small window that’s framed by laws and societal expectations. In essence yes people do have free will, but if it came right down to it it’s essentially all about choice. People have the freewill to choose right from wrong.

Our thoughts and decisions are solely based upon the agreement that as an individual we are free to make choices that will eventually carve and create the future. Having this right to choose certainly derives from using experiences towards grasp of using the foundation of knowledge to justify the acts of freedom we are inclined to use. The justice of free-will is underlined by metaphysical grounds. Our minds and self-works around what we know and