The three philosophers, d’Hollbach, James, and Chisholm argument revolves around how humans free will is connected to moral choices and how they are responsible for their actions. D’Hollbach writes about how the soul and body are not separate, but are one with a special connection. James explains determinism and the distinctions between soft and hard determinism. Chisholm argues against compatibilism and reveals the difference between transceunt and immanent causation. The three philosophers at one point consider the free will notion and how humans are responsible for their own actions. In d’Hollbach’s “We Are Completely Determined”, his argument explains dualism, which leads people to think that the soul controls itself and its own actions. …show more content…
He brings up that notions of regret are logical, especially moral regret since it brings up clarity. Another topic he discusses is the two types of determinism; hard and soft. The main difference between, as described by James is that hard determinism uses more harsh words unlike soft. He explains that hard determinism leans towards no free will, while soft determinism is when one is not determined but still free. He describes determinism as acknowledging parts of the universe that are present and can predict the future; “It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what other parts shall be” (407). Determinism states that possibilities should be considered, but if one fails to preform, then there were no possibilities at all. Indeterminism is the contradiction of determinism, explaining that particular events do not have to be the cause of future events and they can’t provide a concrete prediction. People decide between the two sides by searching for the truth, facts and possibilities on the sides. James says that “The question relates solely to the existence of possibilities, in the strict sense of the term, as things that may, but need not, be” (408). James inputs his thoughts, expressing that if determinism is true, humans do not have free will; “But if any one pretends that while freedom and variety are, in the first instance, subjective demands, necessity and uniformity are something altogether different, I do not see how we can debate at all”
Since laws put certain restrictions on a 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. This, roughly speaking, is the principle of transfer of nonresponsibility. Now, an argument can be generated to show that causal determinism rules out moral responsibility.
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
Free will, many believe it (free will) is only a fabrication and humans are at the mercy of natural law; determinist theories suggest that humankind is no more than a mere pawn, destined to carry out the grand design the universe has so concretely laid out. Others (Compatibilist), like to think that although, mankind is under universal law, decisions are ultimately made by individuals thus, free will must be real. The Libertarians like to think humanity's fate is left entirely up to the common people and therefore, any action(s) taken are simply choices whether they be admirable or atrocious. In the present day, the question of is free will real still seems like a complex riddle that mankind is destined to ponder for an eternity.
Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are companionable philosophies. The question that is posed is; is it possible to believe in both ideas without being rationally erratic? Is there such thing as controlling every aspect of our life and choosing what we do and how we do it? Or is it previous events that have happened in our lives that cause everything that happens? It has been argued back and fourth for centuries, if free will and determinism are compatible and it will continue for many more. Throughout this essay, it will be argued that compatibilism cannot be defended, with use of sufficient evidence and support from research conducted on this topic. Free will is supported and determinism is not supported, which will
Elizabeth writes a letter to Descartes asking him to explain to her the relationship “there is between the soul, which is immaterial, and the body, which is material” (Margaret A.: p16). She seeks this clarification particularly on the aspect of how the soul influences the body movements. This question comes following a claim that Descartes had made “regarding the body and the soul” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). He intimated that the body and the soul exist as single entities and that each has autonomous function. This is found in the philosophy of the dualism.
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretion, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events, including human actions, are determined by forces outside the will of an individual, contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skepticism in a strong systematic order.
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.
“There is a continuum between free and unfree, with many or most acts lying somewhere in between.” (Abel, 322) This statement is a good summation of how Nancy Holmstrom’s view of free will allows for degrees of freedom depending on the agent’s control over the situation. Holmstrom’s main purpose in her Firming Up Soft Determinism essay was to show that people can have control over the source of their actions, meaning that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and because of this they have free will. She also tried to show that her view of soft determinism was compatible with free will and moral responsibility. While Holmstrom’s theory about the self’s being in control, willingness to participate, and awareness of an act causes the act to be free, has some merit, her choice to incorporate soft determinism ultimately proved to invalidate her theory.
To try to explain Dualism through God, we must talk about corporeal bodies and our knowledge of them. Regarding the nature of corporeal bodies and what is known about them and given Descartes premises, the conclusions he draws in Meditation Six are generally the correct ones. He again invokes the causal to argue that the ideas...
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
In "Human Freedom and the Self" Chisholm rejects both determinism (every event that is involved in an act is caused by some other event) and indeterminism (the view that the act, or some event that is essential to the act , is not caused at all) on the basis that they are not contingent with the view that : human beings are responsbile agents. The main dilemma that he trys to resolve is as follows. If we adhere to strict determinism and indeterminism, then any act is either caused by a previous event or is not caused at all. Consider that we follow determinism and that we assume the act is caused by a previous event. If that is the case, and freedom conflicts with determinism, then the person who performed the act is not responsible for it. Also, if the act was not caused at all, the person cannot be responsible for it, that is, human responsibility and indeterminism conflict. So if either determinism or indeterminism were true, there would be no other alternate courses of action and people would not be morally responsible because they could not have done otherwise.
. There are two kinds of dualism. One is Substance dualism which holds that the mind or soul is a separate, non-physical entity, but there is also property dualism, according to which there is no soul distinct from the body, but only one thing, the person, that has two irreducibly different types of properties, mental and physical. Substance dualism leaves room for the possibility that the soul might be able to exist apart from the body, either before birth or after death; property dualism does not. A substance dualism is something with "an independent existence". It can exist on its own. This holds that each distinct non-physical entity mind composed a different kind of substance to material objects. Substance dualist believed only spiritual substances can have mental properties. It is “soul” along with certain memory and psychological continuities that constitutes the survival of the person. Physical properties of property dualism are properties like having a certain weight, conducting electricity and mental properties are properties like believing that 1+1=2, being in love, feeling pain, and etc. Property dualism allows for the compatibility of mental and physical causation, since the cause of an action might under one aspect is describable as a physical event in the brain and under another aspect as a desire, emotion, or thought; substance dualism usually requires causal interaction between the soul and the body. Dualistic theories at least acknowledge the serious difficulty of locating consciousness in a modern scientific conception of the physical world, but they really give metaphysical expression to the problem rather than solving it.
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
Human beings decide our own uncertainty and fate. In The Will to Believe, James discusses choice and questions genuine choice. He categorizes these choices as ones that are lived, force and the ones he calls “momentous”. For the first option, we have the choice on whether we conceptualize a thought in which we agree with opposed to being against. Second, the option of either being forced to choose something or doing the exact opposite and deny the belief by not choosing at all. Lastly, we have this “momentous” understanding that affects us and can be one occurrence in a lifetime. Based on these selections, we can shape what we believe in. There are different situations that play out when it comes to believing in something. In other words, whether we want to admit it or not, there are many outside factors that influence our own beliefs. James considers the notion that we sometimes look to leaders and people in power and shape our beliefs through them. Also, occasionally when have a choice that can’t be answered logically, we have to make the choice whether it’s ok to believe that is true or not and live with the fact that we may have been wrong. William James states “Do not decide, just like “yes” or “no” and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth” (James WTB 334). The two things that dictate how we form our beliefs are the desire to know it and the
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).