More handpicked essays just for you.
Determinism and freewill controversy
Determinism and freewill controversy
Is free will opposite to determinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Freedom-Determinism Debate
The controversy between freewill and determinism has been argued about for years. Freewill is defined as the belief that our behaviour is under our own control and do not act in response to any internal or external factors. Freewill has been found to have four different conditions and to have freewill at least two conditions must be obtained, these are; people have a choice on their actions, have not been coerced by anything or anyone, have full voluntary and deliberate control of what they do. One example of freewill in psychology is Humanism. The humanists are in favour of freewill as they believe that humans aren’t ever determined to behave in a certain way.
According to Maslow (1950) we all strive for self-actualisation, which is that we move towards freewill. However it’s been found that maladaptive behaviour results from lack of acceptance of oneself which prevents Maslow’s self-actualisation occurring, therefore not everyone can strive for it, after all there are individual differences.
Freewill has been used as a defence in murder, some say that something which is beyond their control has determined them to kill someone i.e. inherited bad temper genes. But the freewill argument will be supported by diminished responsibility in law, because it shows that most behaviour is free, only those who are mentally ill and children have determined behaviour.
More supporting evidence for the existence of freewill comes from Penfield (1947); he stimulated parts of the brain of patients about to undergo brain surgery, to make them feel as though their limbs were moving. Penfield found that his patients said they felt different when their limbs moved when being coerced and when they moved them by their own freewill. Therefore freewill is a subjective feeling and most people believe they have freewill and this feeling supports this. One criticism to this is behaviourists such as Skinner would say that this subjective feeling of being free is just an illusion. The reason we feel free is that we are often unaware of our past reinforcement history.
There are applications from the Humanistic approach, counselling can make people exercise their freewill to maximise the rewards (reinforcements) in their lives. This has good consequences as it gives us power to change. On the other hand, it’s a very optimistic view and doesn’...
... middle of paper ...
...ur is not only determined by one factor. Factors such as personality are internal but they still can be the result of what’s happened in the past, like Freud would say, so they are no more or less the product of freewill than any other internal factors. The argument therefore is not so much between freewill and determinism but between soft and hard determinism.
Since hard determinism is the only scientifically defensible way to understand humanity, the concept of freewill still hides the real issues. Also one question that has been found is that isn’t freewill just another aspect of behaviour determined by the brain and mind? Therefore maybe it isn’t just freewill or determinism acting on its own to control our behaviour, but a bit of both. Another alternative such as the libertarian view propose that no matter how much the events around us may be pre-determined, the human mind still has the capability of acting in a completely unpredictable manner without any specific cause for the behaviour.
Determinism is not fatalism and freewill is not randomness. Maybe if we take an eclectic approach and together with its applications could make us understand human behaviour better.
Throughout the course of time the elastic clause and the commerce clause has been utilized in court cases and arguments. With time the clauses have changed the fit into the change of society. As represented by various court cases. A variation of interpretations has been drawn out within the time frame of its establishment. A loose and strict interpretation has been implemented in the constitution depending on point of views. Although, the interpretation of the constitution is strictly restricted to the Judicial Branch as concluded in the court case Marbury Versus Madison. The elastic clause is known as congress has the power to do what is “Necessary and Proper”. In contrast, commerce clause is, often, limited with concerning trading issues. Thus concluding, the Elastic Clause has more power rather than the Commerce clause.
Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress’ ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.
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.
A perfect example is how I am unfree to do this final assignment. There are many forces that have me chained to to doing this like financial and social factors, despite the fact that I 'd much rather be doing other things. I am free though on how I choose to go about it. I could work on it a week ahead of time and work on it slowly, or I could choose to work on it in one single night. Thousands of other possibilities are also open. So to some degree, we are free, but yet also unfree. An opposition to this is the one that all the factors in our lives from the moment we are born have shaped all the moments we 've had henceforth. “what we believe and desire depends on factors completely beyond our control. Speaking generally, it depends on the way the world is; more specifically, it depends on our biological and psychological natures, the society in which we live, and our particular portion of it...”10 Everything happens in a causal chain down to the tiny chemical reactions in our brain, and all the feelings, our social place, the temperature in the room, to what we ate for breakfast. All these various variables pull and tug on our path and the choice we make is already determined. I think though that this is true to some degree, but the ultimate choice comes down to the rational thought and its decision. The weighing of all these factors is done
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.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
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.
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
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.
Determinism currently takes two related forms: hard determinism and soft determinism [1][1]. Hard determinism claims that the human personality is subject to, and a product of, natural forces. All of our choices can be accounted for by reference to environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary (biological) causes. Our total character is a product of these environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary forces, thus our beliefs, desires, values and habits are all outside of our control. The hard determinist, therefore, claims that our choices are determined by these factors; free will is an illusion because the choices and decisions we make are derived from our character, which is completely out of our control in creating. An example might help illustrate this point. Consider a man who has just repeatedly stabbed another man outside of a bar; the other man is dead. The hard determinist would argue that there were factors outside of the killer’s control which led him to this action. As a child, he was constantly beaten by his father and was the object of ridicule and contempt of his classmates. This trend of hard luck would continue all his life. Coupled with the fact that he has a gene that has been identified with male aggression, he could not control himself when he pulled the knife out and started stabbing the other man. All this aggression, and all this history were the determinate cause of his action.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism
Sophocles’ use of symbolism and irony is shown in Oedipus Tyrannus through his use of the notion of seeing and blindness. This common motif is extended throughout the play and takes on a great significance in the development of the plot. In an effort to escape his god given prophecy, Oedipus tragically falls into the depths of unthinkable crimes as a result of the mental blindness of his character; thus never escaping his lot.
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).