Causal determinism is the concept that preceding causes give rise to everything which exists such that reality could be nothing but what it is. Science depends on this idea as it aims to find generalisations about the conjunction of certain causes and effects and thus hold some power of prediction about their future co-occurrence. However, in human interaction people assume each other to be responsible for their acts and not merely at the whim of causal laws. So the question which troubles philosophers is whether causation dictates entirely the course of human action or whether we as agents possess some free will. I will argue that free will is an inescapable illusion of the mind, something which never did nor ever could exist under causal determinism.
Compatiblists propose that free will and determinism coexist while to incompatibilists that would be impossible. If we are to decide for ourselves then firstly we must establish the meanings of causal determinism and freedom of the will. Proponents of causal determinism contend that
1. Every event has a cause
2. Human actions constitute a sort of event
3. Thus every human action has a cause
4. Every action ever executed is nothing more than an inevitable consequence of the preceding conditions in the universe
So if causal determinism is true humans lack any capacity to choose or to will as nothing could ever be other than it is. (McFee. 2000, p. 21)
Free will is a far more elusive notion. However authors seem to agree on a few aspects of it.
In his paper Has the Self “Free Will”? Campbell suggests that an effective free will is confined to the domain of moral decisions. He asserts that to exercise free will an agent must be sole author of an act, not simply yieldin...
... middle of paper ...
...scapable illusion of the mind. Similarly to how Strawson argues the truth of determinism would not make agents any less morally accountable, I believe the falseness of free will does not detract from its usefulness in clarifying our mental narratives and explaining the origins of our actions.
Works Cited
Fischer, J.M. (Ed.). (2005). Free Will: Critical Concepts of Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge.
McFee, G. (2000). Free Will. Teddington: Acumen Publishing.
Perry, J., Bratman, M. & Fischer, J.M. (2010). Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J., Bratman, M. & Fischer, J.M. 1998). Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, C.A. (1957) On Selfhood and Godhood, London: George, Allen & Unwin.
“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
Frankfurtean compatibilism provides a more refined model than Humean compatibilism. Humean compatibilism has denied the deterministic notion of freedom-the ability to have chosen otherwise. Hume then provides a new definition of freedom, as “a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (“Of Liberty and Necessity”, 23). In Hume’s view, as long as we act according to our desires and belief, we are exercising freedom of will and freedom of action. Frankfurt adds a further distinction within our desires, and concludes that our will is free if and only if we act on a first-order desire determined by our second-order desire. An agent’s will, defined by Frankfurt, is “the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a ...
Compatibilists and Incompatibilists debate determinism and free will. Determinism is the idea that our actions are determined by past events. In other words, in our present state we do not have control over our actions and they are pre-determined. Only one thing can happen given a certain condition and nothing else can occur. Determinism seems to pose a problem because it tests the possibility that we do not have free will or control over our actions because with certain conditions there can only be one possible outcome. Another problem it poses towards the idea of free will is that since there are infinite possibilities of what actions one takes, this means we do not have control over our actions according to determinism. Compatibilists say free will coexists with the idea of determinism and that they are compatible. They claim the possibility that there is true determinism and free will. Incompatibilists debate the opposite and say free will does not coexist with the idea of determinism and they are incompatible. The claim they address is that there is no possibility that there is true determinism and free will. Robert Kane analyzes both sides in his attempt to show the differences between each side and to draw possible conclusions to the question and existence of free will. The compatibilist and incompatiblists agree that there are other worlds where there is free will but disagree on the fact that determinism is true.
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
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.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
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
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.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
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.
The existence of free will remains a perplexing issue, dividing academics today as it did millennia ago. The arguments on each side have become more nuanced; premises have become sharper and more artfully posed, yet it seems possible - even likely, that we currently lack the appropriate conceptions of both causality and mentality to unify academics into a consensus on free will. In a particular sense the universe required the freedom to exist. The universe itself represents the exercising of a kind of freedom we are yet to understand. Maybe we don’t have freedom. Perhaps instead it is truer to say that freedom has us.
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).
Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 4th ed. Toronto: McGraw Hill Companies, 2002.