Human Beings as Being Genuinely Free
To be able to answer this question successfully we must first
understand what is meant by the term 'genuinely free.' By this do we
mean to have limitless freedom where each choice is our own or rather
freedom within certain boundaries? There are of course many different
views which consider the extent of our freedom and what being free
really means, ranging from ultimate, unlimited freedom to us having
absolutely no freedom.
If we are to believe that human beings are completely free we are
likely to accept the Libertarian view:
By liberty, then we can only mean a power of acting or not acting,
according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to
remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may
(David Hume)
Libertarianism suggests that we are entirely free to make a morally
responsible decision. Libertarianism does consider the fact that some
aspects of life are causally determined; however these determined
aspects are only affected by the inner self of the moral agent which
in itself is uncaused. As Spaemann explained we use a reflective
component which takes into consideration these objective and
subjective facts and then makes a free choice. It is this, our moral
self, which is free to choose, yet factors such as the moral agent's
character or values which or not.
Waddan's religiously supported view states that the Ten Commandments
are only understandable if we are free to choose whether to obey them
or not:
If God had been a libertarian, we'd have gotten the Ten Suggestions
(James P. Hogan)
If we are not free to do so then there is no poi...
... middle of paper ...
...oice, are free.
Therefore, we are still morally responsible for our actions even
though determinism is present during our decision making. In this
instance, human beings would be considered free to a certain extent
yet not entirely.
In conclusion, to be capable of answering this question we must have
decided upon our own interpretation of what it is to be free. If we
are Libertarian we believe in ultimate free will for the entire human
race, yet if we are a Hard Determinist then human beings have no
freedom as everything is determined by past events, and if we believe
in religious Predestination then God has already made the deciding
choices in our lives. Therefore, an answer may only be relevant to
those whom share the same opinion:
Freedom is something people take and people are as free as they want
to be
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.
be content enough to drive slower and get home in one piece even if it
Hogan). If we are not free to do so then there is no point in our existence as a whole because sinning would be a concept outside of our control. The teachings of Jesus are based on the fact that we can freely choose at all times. For example, if we are asked to repent then we’re obviously free to choose whether to repent or not. If we apply the Libertarianism view to this question then it is simple to understand that human beings would be considered completely free. To say that humans are completely free is wrong because there’s no way that everything we do is one hundred percent up to us. There are many different background causes that we don’t even think about when we’re about to make a certain decision. For example, if someone is debating whether to run through the yellow light or slow down, you might not go through it if last time the light changed to red and you got a ticket. The decision was determined by previous decisions that you made. Even though you might think that you had a number of different options, they weren’t really options. You were bound to do exactly what you did in that
People have free will and are responsible for their actions. More specifically I believe in compatablism, which states that determinism and freedom are compatible. I believe that in the end we all have a specific place we finish, but it is through our actions and choices that lead us there. Take the example of a highway. People choose which lane they want to be in for the time they are traveling, but in the end they are going to end up at the same exit. As long as one is doing what they want to do, one is acting freely. This is harmonious with the underlying laws of being deterministic. Actions are determined by our thoughts, desires, and beliefs. Because they are determined by things such as these, they are appropriately our own actions.
The history of African-American oppression began in the early 1600s as slaves arrived on America’s shores. For hundreds of years, African-Americans struggled against crippling segregation, terrorism, and racial enmity to no avail. As a result of extensive physical and psychological beatings, African-Americans became fearful and very reserved in expressing their emotions. Their suffering, however, fuelled a sense of courage in some, such as African-American poets, who found the strength to address uncertainties that others had against their racial identity. These brave men included George Horton, who wrote “Liberty and Slavery”, and Paul Dunbar, author of “We Wear a Mask”. Through their powerful race-protest poetry, Horton and Dunbar portray that African-Americans feel incessantly trapped, both physically and emotionally, resulting in a deep-rooted yearning for freedom.
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
In the Nineteenth century, most people had one goal that they wanted to obtain more than any other. It wasn’t immense wealth, health, or even material goods, even though that was probably what some had in mind. It was the freedom. There are numerous ways in which freedom could be defined such as: having the “rights” of a white adult male, having a voice in the community/ government, not being owned by another human, being able to speak, write, and practice whatever religion one may want without consequences. The list of what it was like to be free goes on and on. All of these qualities of being free still hold true today. Many of those who were not free spoke out against the oppression they were facing. Fredrick Douglas and Harriet Jacobs were two African American writers whose pursuit for freedom caught the eye of many Americans. These two writers attacked what Americans in the Nineteenth century painted freedom to look like and the reality of what it really was. They lived in a time where Americans talked about all men being equal, yet they owned slaves. Both being born into slavery, Douglas, Jacobs and other slaves were not meant to read and write like those of the white race. Something as simple as literacy was important root to the idea of freedom. Fredrick Douglas and Harriet Jacobs used their personal life experiences to show their readers why freedom was and still is so much deeper than the characteristics named earlier. These writers struck the hearts of Americans and redefined freedom as a treasure that allows one to be a self-governing, literate, and a self-reliant individual.
Freedom in the United States Essay submitted by Unknown No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect for the freedom of religion.
With this form of choice, we are not compelled to act by any other force; it is our moral consciousness that is free and decides. Moreover, these decisions result from the character and moral views of the person themselves, and – according to Libertarians – we are free to act on these decisions but we are also morally responsible for them. We are perceived as free agents with the capability to make choices and accept the consequences. We – as humans – have a sense of weighing up options before we make decisions. However, some people argue that causation is a fact of the universe but Libertarians believe it does not apply to the human will. Libertarians attempt to demonstrate this idea through quantum mechanics as well as the chaos theory; these theories attempt to prove that nature is indeterministic and therefore not everything is determined. If we look at chaos theory, which is the idea that there is apparently random behaviours within a deterministic system, we can see this idea of things not being determined. However, this ‘randomness’ is not due to a lack of laws, but rather due to immeasurable variations in the initial conditions affecting the outcome of an event. Furthermore, this is why chaos theory is often referred to as the butterfly effect as the beat of a butterfly’s wing in Europe could lead to a hurricane in
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
The constitution of the United States of America gives me the right to freedom because I am a United States citizen. I consider "freedom" to be my right to express myself in any way I choose. Freedom is defined as "having liberty of action or thought, independent". "Self-governed or not controlled by an outside party" is another definition of freedom. Freedom has a different meaning to each individual thus making it hard to find a clear concise definition.
Freedom is often spoken of in what can be referred to as a loose sense of the word. One country has more freedom than another; a twenty-one year old has more freedom than a fifteen year old. What exactly does this word mean? For different people it may mean different things, but there has to be an equilibrium that can be reached in order to determine the meaning of freedom itself. In one form, freedom can mean that a person has "exemption from an obligation."* If only the root (free) is looked at, it can be interpreted that one is "not under the control or power of another."*
The first viewpoint regarding human freedom is determinism. The thesis of the determinist is that, “Every event (including human actions) has a cause, and the chain of causes leading to any given action by an agent extends back in time to some point before the agent was born” (Koons, 2002, p. 81). This means that there is no such thing as free will, and that there is only one choice we could ever make
People can have the desire for freedom as well as the desire for limitations on freedom. This is because freedom and limitations on freedom are both needed to live peacefully. Absolute freedom cannot be achieved because when you take away limitations you take away freedoms. With out rules governing our society, people would be able to do what they want to each other with out a certain punishment. When you examine the advantages and disadvantages of both arguments it becomes clearer.