Blatchford vs. Lamont
Corliss Lamont, who is in opposition to Robert Blatchford, presents to us the issue of “freedom of choice and human responsibility.” Lamont attempts to prove that there is existence of free will, and that freedom is a necessary condition of moral responsibility. On the other hand, Blatchford develops a view of determinism against the theories of freedom and free choice. He suggests that the past, along with the laws of nature, determine our future. Every event that occurs, including human actions and choices, are predestined given the laws of nature and the events that preceded it.
Lamont’s theory or conclusion differs from that of Blatchford’s because Lamont believes in the extreme opposite. If determinism is true, then this eliminates the possibility that each human individual has control over their own lives and the ability to make choices about their future on the basis of reason. Free will has been held to be incompatible with determinism.
If we assume that human beings have the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances, then we are completely contradicting determinism, which states that human beings have no free will to choose what they wish, and that we cannot avoid doing what we do.
The question of whether there is free choice or whether we are subject to ordinary causality raises the issue of determinism in human conduct. Are we ultimately “determined” by our biology, heredity, environment, beliefs, and other conditioning factors, or whether we have “free will” to override any such determination? I agree with Blatchford and the theory that there is a cause for every wish and every choice a man acts from. I believe we are free to choose as heredity and environment cause us to choose.
Our choices can make a difference, and do make a difference. Different choices will lead to different actions, but we cannot avoid the choices we make. We only perceive that we can change our actions and behavior and we are just ignorant of all the irresistible forces acting upon us. Total determinism rules the universe and human life.
I believe that all events in the history of the world, and the actions and incidents which make up the story of each individual life, are determined by fate. The thoughts, feelings and reasoning of mankind have had no effect on our history.
I believe in determinism, because god, or an otherwise known supernatural being, supports determinism.
The contradiction here is that humans 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, has no control over the consequences of one’s behavior. For example, he expresses how compatibilism has been in existence before laws were even made.
The view mentioned is alarming in two respects: First of all, in accordance with the way we see ourselves we are convinced that freedom is essential for man's being. Secondly, philosophers think they have excellent arguments against determinism.
In particular, the first concept of ‘free will’ signifies humans as moral responsible individuals who act based on their inherent causal effects operations. It is clear that determinism is true in case there is freedom and necessity relevant for causing a morally upright act. Indeed, it is imperative that the whole concept of necessity does not battle with all implications attached to liberty because they are naturally compatible. Since human being are agents of actions; therefore, a physical cause and effect concept ideally relates to the moral thoughts behind the causal of their consequences. In other case, determinism may tend to seem untrue (Inwagen’s reasoning), especially when a responsible person fails to conduct a moral duty due to an imposed constraint that deprives him or her of the
In this essay, I will explore the concept of free will by drawing a correlation to determinism and analyse if free will is dictated for us. I will argue that the future is
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
In philosophy today, free will is defined as, “the power of human beings to choose certain actions, uninfluenced by pressure of any sort, when a number of other options are simultaneously possible.” Philosophers have debated the issue of whether humans truly possess free will since ancient times. Some argue that humans act freely, while others believe that, “Every event, including our choices and decisions, is determined by previous events and the laws of nature—that is, given the past and the laws of nature, every event could not have been otherwise,” which is an idea known as determinism (Barry, #14). This relationship between free will and determinism continues to puzzle philosophers into the twenty-first century. An example of a piece to the free will puzzle, are the schools of thought of Incompatibilism and Compatibilism. Incompatibilism is defined as,
All in all, each view of 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 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.
The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions are on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by Necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event are because of some prior cause. This causation may be by an external driving force, such as a divine power, or simply a chain of events leading up to a specific moment. The problem is then further divided into those believing the two may both exist, compatibilism, or one cannot exist with the other, incompatibilism. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents an argument for the former, believing it is possible for both Free Will and Necessity to exist simultaneously. This presentation in favor of compatibilism, which he refers to as the reconciling problem, is founded on a fundamental understanding of knowledge and causation, which are supported by other empiricists such as John Locke. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing and supporting Hume’s argument for compatibilism. I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue everything is determined and Free Will is possible.
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
As some believe that we humans have free will, they believe that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom of action. But, if all of our actions have a reason behind them, or if there is a causal explanation behind each of our choices, it is difficult to say that we actually have the freedom of will. For this reason, determinism challenges free will, as the determinist believes that all of our decisions are governed by some form of natural law, and that all of our behaviors are explainable by this law.
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.
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.
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.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
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).