Determinism and the Limits of Freedom
In Philosophy there are many questions that individuals have asked and one of the most important questions is “are we truly free?”. Many individuals have their opinions on free will; some may argue that we are free inhabitants of this world and that the world is our playground and we may do as we wish, and some believe that we have to abide by this world and its rules which discourages many from doing as they wish, therefore in essence, we are not truly free. One of the most influential philosophers, Baron d’Holbach, had two beliefs regarding limitations of human freedom, d’Holbach called them internal and external constraints. Internal constraints are constraints that hinder our ability to do as we wish
…show more content…
In relation to internal and external constraints, there is a theory called determinism which, according to John Chaffee is “The view that every event, including human actions is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion” (P. 159). Digging deeper into determinism, we find hard determinism, which is a belief that there is absolutely no free will without a trace of doubt and everything that happens is in accordance with a cause. On the surface it may seem that hard determinism and internal/external constraints have no difference and that both beliefs are exactly the same, however, there is one obscure difference that some individuals may miss and to put it in a hypothetical situation, an individual is walking in an alley and a mugger comes and robs the individual at gunpoint, the individual is still free even with this external force present, however, the individual’s options are limited to either fighting back or being in compliance with the criminal’s demands, however, with a hard deterministic belief the individual would have had no options and would have had to do what the criminal had asked of them, ultimately leaving the individual with
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
...on, freedom of the will is needed to clarify that just because one’s actions are capable of being predicated, it does not follow that I am constrained to do one action or the other. If I am constrained though, my will is absent from the situation, for I really don’t want to give someone my money with a pistol to my head, and it follows my action is constrained and decided by external compulsion, rather than internal activity, or stated otherwise, that internal activity being free will, and thus free will is reconciled with determinism.
Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That we do not have free will, our choices shapes up by the world we born in to. Some others believe that we born as a blank paper we could shape by the occasions or choices that we make freely. Marry Midgley on her article “Freedom and Heredity” defends that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will. Those limitations lead us to use free will and make choices freely. She continues without our limitations we do not need to use free will. Free will needs to be used according to our needs but when mentioning need not as our moral need as our needs to what could we bring up with our capacities. We need to use our free will without stereotypes. Furthermore free will should be shaped by the choice that would lead us good consequences.
According to this theory, if determinism is correct, based any individuals past and prior experiences there is only one future that is possible for that particular individual. There are two different types of determinism: Hard determinism and Soft determinism. Both types of determinism have the same principles; that every action that happens in an individual’s life is determined on a physical level and that all life events are determined by previous life events.
Everything is pre-decided. Every activity of your life is planned in advance. Go to bed at 8, listen to the lecture in the morning, and dine with a previously-planned sitting. How could you be free when all your life and actions are already determined by others? How could you feel free when you can’t express what you think owing to the fear of being socially-excluded? Are you really free when you’re constantly watched by an invented social conscious?
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
In his book, Thomas Hobbes argued that freedom is comprised when there are no outer impediments towards a person when engaging in what he desires to do: “Unregulated agent is that one can engage in what he wills and bear as per desire that liberty is absenteeism of outer impediments.” According to this definition, free will is the ability of a person to make a decision without being prevented or obstructed by any part. Another philosopher (Hume) defined freedom- liberty, as power of doing or of not doing, as per the d...
Soft determinism attempts to make the disagreeing data of determinism and freedom compatible. The theory of soft determinism rests on three fundamental claims: (1) the deterministic concept that human behaviour is causally determined; (2) that there is freedom in voluntary behaviour, so long as there is no physical impediment or constraint upon the action; and (3) that the cause of the voluntary behaviour (which is possible in the absence of impediments or constraints) is an internal state of the agent of the action. According to soft determinism, therefore, we are responsible for our actions on o...
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
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.
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.
Free will can be defined as: “The right, given to humans by God, to make their own decisions.” A mans free will cannot be destroyed by any power other than God. Humans can always exercise their free will when making decisions. However, when their decisions come in conflict with the laws set by a higher power, they might face consequences based on how they choose to use their free will. The more restrictions imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their ability to make decisions become. The extent to which someone may exercise their free will can be defined as their “freedom.” Therefore, the more laws imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their freedom. Although no power, save God, can destroy free will, they can limit and even destroy someones freedom. In the essay Shooting an Elephant George Orwell argues that, “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell, 704). Free will is indestructible; an example of Orwell’s destruction of freedom but preservation of free will is given in his essay. In Antigone an example of how even though higher powers can limit your decisions they cannot stop you from exercising your free will.
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).
t is intriguing that when a person is presented with the ideas of free will or determinism, they usually jump rather quickly to the conclusion of free will. Most people appreciate the genuine freedom that accompanies choice, but do we really possess it? Complete free will would mean that our decisions would be unrelated to other factors such as the environment or genetics. In reality, our free decisions are based on factors that are beyond our own control. When exercising certain choices, we conclude that we have acted freely and distinguish our actions from situations in which we believe were not in our control. The events that are not in our control are pre-determined for us, which lead us on a path to a determined life. Even though we may be making our own unique decisions, they all connect to form a single planned outcome.
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.