Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
conclusion of determinism vs free will
conclusion of determinism vs free will
Free Will Vs. Determinism Philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: conclusion of determinism vs free will
What does it mean to have free will when one cannot choose the environment in which they live in? Because the environment in which one lives in shapes their beliefs and practices, how is it they are morally responsible for their actions and decisions when they are not in control of the environment they live in? Causal determinism is a belief that everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. Furthermore determinism implies if the conditions under which one made a choice were precisely the same, one could not have done otherwise (Kamber). While it is difficult to argue against causal determinism there is still freedom to reflect on possible alternatives before acting. Though, the question is not whether one can choose to do what they want (to follow their desire) but whether one is free enough to be held accountable for their decisions even though one can judge the importance of these desires and their place among other reasons for action (Horton www.oocities.org/emilische/free-will.doc). In the movie Groundhog Day, Phil Connors experiences the same day (Groundhog Day) over and over again. At first Phil uses this to his advantage until he discovers he is forced to stay in the same place with the same people who do the same thing every day. While Phil Connors lives in an identical situation every day and therefore a deterministic setting, does Phil have free will and is he morally responsible for his actions? According to compatibilists Harry Frankfurt, Susan Wolf, and John Martin Fischer in certain events where one “could not do otherwise” one could still have free will and moral responsibility over their actions. With the example of Phil Connors and the ideas of compatibilists Harry Frankfurt, Susan ...
... middle of paper ...
...ch causes the boy to get hurt, is he still morally responsible? Sometimes humans know something is going to happen if no one intervenes. According to Peter Singer, if that something is bad and one can stop it with little to no cost of oneself, then it is reasonable that one ought to stop it and is blameworthy if one fails to stop it if they do not have an adequate excuse. Because Phil knows something bad is going to happen if he does not intervene and he can stop it with no cost to himself, Phil is blameworthy of letting the child fall. Phil still has free will because his desire was to not help the child and yet he is still blameworthy of not saving the child from the fall.
Also John Martin Fischer offers the idea of semicompatibilism, an idea that allows us to confidently attribute moral responsibility to agents even if we are unsure whether determinism is true.
Based on the article ‘Compatibilism’ written by W.T. Stace, he explained about the reconciliation between free will and causal determinism. He tries to reconcile both of these by adopting a compatibilist view of freedom. Firstly, it says that free will is related with morality which means if one is absent, so the other. We appear to be free, however, determinism suggests that every actions that we did are determined by previous events that happened to us that we have no control over it.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Yes, he is responsible for his actions. Everyone has a conscience that acts as a so called ‘voice’ that leads them to do right things or wrong things, but in my opinion, your conscience is just you deciding whether or not to do something on your own. Cole didn’t have to steal from stores, and he didn’t have to beat Peter up. He didn’t have to do any of it and now his actions are his responsibility. “The kid, Peter Driscal, was a ninth grader Cole had picked on many times before just for the fun of it. Still, no one ratted on Cole Matthews without paying the price. That day, he caught up to Peter in the hallway at school. ‘You’re a dead man,’ he warned the skinny red-haired boy, giving him a hard shove. He laughed when he saw the fear in Peter’s eyes.” (pg. 7, Touching Spirit Bear) Cole didn’t have to do that, but he did anyway. If Cole only knew how to take responsibility for his actions or not even do them at all, life would be great for the characters in the story. But, if you were wondering, obviously if someone like Cole beat other kids up, their had to be someone or something making him behave like this. Like maybe someone was picking on him? Clearly we know it is not someone at his school, “He hated being called Champ. And he hated being touched. Nobody ever touched him except to hit him.
“The computer manual does the technical work for us and makes clear the theoretical simple grounds of the decisions we need to make when use the computer. The common model of a theory of right action, as we meet it explicitly in many introductions to moral theory, and implicitly in the work of many moral theorists can be called the computer manual model.”
“Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Dictionary.com). The novel Slaughterhouse five portrays the idea of not having free will. The award winning author, Kurt Vonnegut, tells
Compatibilist like Peter van Inwagen believes that freedom can be present or absent in any situations. One of the famous Consequence Argument on compatibilism is by Peter van Inwagen who says: “If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us."1 The contradiction here is that human cannot refrain from performing free will. Therefore, determinism cannot abolish free will. He also mentions that if determinism is true then no one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future, and, also, have no control over the consequences of one’s behavior. For example, he expresses how compatibilism has been in existence before laws were even made. Since laws put certain restrictions on human’s free will, it should not stop humans from doing what he or she wants to do. He also expresses how society and nature should not determine one’s own free will because it can never be taken away from humans. Humans are incapable of knowing what the future looks like, therefore they cannot be morally responsible for the
Human beings always believe that what they want to do is ‘up to them,' and on this account, they take the assumption that they have free will. Perhaps that is the case, but people should investigate the situation and find a real case. Most of the intuitions may be correct, but still many of them can be incorrect. There are those who are sceptical and believe that free will is a false illusion and that it only exists in the back of people’s minds, but society should be able to distinguish feelings from beliefs in order to arrive at reality and truth.
A perfect example is how I am unfree to do this final assignment. There are many forces that have me chained to to doing this like financial and social factors, despite the fact that I 'd much rather be doing other things. I am free though on how I choose to go about it. I could work on it a week ahead of time and work on it slowly, or I could choose to work on it in one single night. Thousands of other possibilities are also open. So to some degree, we are free, but yet also unfree. An opposition to this is the one that all the factors in our lives from the moment we are born have shaped all the moments we 've had henceforth. “what we believe and desire depends on factors completely beyond our control. Speaking generally, it depends on the way the world is; more specifically, it depends on our biological and psychological natures, the society in which we live, and our particular portion of it...”10 Everything happens in a causal chain down to the tiny chemical reactions in our brain, and all the feelings, our social place, the temperature in the room, to what we ate for breakfast. All these various variables pull and tug on our path and the choice we make is already determined. I think though that this is true to some degree, but the ultimate choice comes down to the rational thought and its decision. The weighing of all these factors is done
“Are we free agents? Can we be responsible for what we do” (Strawson 225) This is the issue that Strawson brings to light in his essay. He begins to explain the notion of free will and responsibility in a compatibilist’s view. They believe that free will and determinism are compatible
Cold dread spreads through his chest as he wonders-no, determines he has experienced this very moment before. He knows sometime recently he cooked his spaghetti before paying the library a visit-last Tuesday maybe? Shaking his head, he decides he must have mixed things up. Déjà vu traps one and all in endless Groundhog Day-esque moments, in which the victim cannot shake the feeling this has happened before, just as it has occurred today. It seems to force the world, each world, to freeze in the very present second. When events occur exactly as they do on parallel worlds, déjà vu strikes all those involved in the incident. In other words, small scale, synchronized events link two slightly different universes in a bridge visible only to those
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
All in all, each view about the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for it which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
Neither soft determinism nor hard determinism successfully reconciles freedom and determinism. Soft determinism fails as it presents a limited type freedom, and it can be argued that the inner state of the agent is causally determined. Hard determinism presents a causally sound argument, whilst ignoring the moral bases of our society. Due to the failure of these theories to harmonize the data, the metaphysical problem of freedom and determinism persists.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
Some Philosophers believe that free will is not required in moral responsibility. John Fischer states that “human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions.” Fischer is basically saying that moral responsibility is not as strong as free will (Timpe).