Locke's View On Free Will

We are creatures with limitations and that provides us make choices by our own. In conclusion choices people make depends on much more things that we can imagine. We all think that we make our choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. Many philosophers argued about the question of free will yet could not get up with a simple result. Midgley supports that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will.

People who believe in this theory are confident that individuals make choices that cause their beliefs and actions and that those choices made, are wholly due to their own choosing. Though this is a popular belief, it is not a logical case for believing humans have free will. If a reason for something cannot be found for why we feel a certain way, and in this case free, philosophy rejects it. Therefore, this reasoning of free will is irrational as there is no evidence to support it. On one end of the continuum is the belief in total free will, on the other end is the belief that free will does not exist.

Will is the ability to choose to act or not to act while reason is the mental capacity that informs the will of the appropriate action. Libertarian and do not believe in Determinism but in free will. This can also bring us to indeterminism which states that all human actions are not so much determined by the preceding events, condition, causes or karma as by deliberate choice of free will. Indeterminist do not have to deny that causes exists but instead

Blanshard make a good point that we should not rely on human emotion to determine if we have free will or not. He makes the claim that determinist are not arguing if we are free to choose, but if we can chose our own choice. Determinist view dictates that choices are determined by antecedents, so we have the freedom to choose which choice but we never decide what those choices are. This claim is one of the most supportive to the determinist view because it explains a position on free will that is coherent with the idea that we live in a predetermined

We are even, quite often, unaware that we are making decisions due to habituation and preference. Before going further, we must define the terms free will, determinism and fate or destiny. Free will is the ability to choose. Furthermore, it is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate. Fate, or destiny, can be defined as the inevitable events predestined by this force.

It also says that if we feel we are not forced, we could have acted differently. That is why I choose to side with free will. Determinism has too many extremes and limits that, already shown, is not possible in this world. Free will is the mind's ability to choose with intelligence. That doesn't mean that our choice has all the freedom in the world.

They argue that even if the actions are predetermined, people are free in other ways that are enough to consider them blameworthy for their actions. Whatever the forces that determine an action (biology, social conditions, upbringing, god whatever) does not cripple our ability to act according to our free will. The compatibilist attitude is in vogue since a long time the forces that determine the action (role of determinism) have been evolving since then but the basic idea, the fact that we do a particular thing even though we don’t really choose what we want to do, we do only as we choose to do. This is put in a better way by T.M Scanlon ‘ Even If our attitudes and actions are fully explained by genetic and environmental factors, it is till true that we have these attitudes and that our actions express them.’ According to Fried this is the ‘indigestible common core of compatibilism’ that we are blameworthy for doing what we could not help but do. Fried argues that blaming a person for doing something which one cannot help his action is indigestible.

Whether it is hard determinism or soft determinism, actions are relatively an impact on future events though not all activities are subject to the idea. One acquires freedom through making correct decisions that shape his or her future. This is because, individuals are morally responsible for an outcome only if they do something that caused that outcome and they had the option of taking a different course of action. Largely, the aspect of “free will” does not exist, as varied factors beyond an individual’s control seem to influence decisions that individuals make. Works Cited Jowett, Benjamin.

What motivates us to behave the way we do in the numerous different situations we get ourselves into? Although there are many different answers that people could give us, there are two theories in particular that are highly debated with each other. One argument is that behaviour is determined through free will, known as libertarianism. Free will, by definition, is the notion that we are free to make our own decisions and are thus in control of our behaviour. By this, however, it is not meant that you can behave in a way completely out of your ability (like lay an egg or fly) just because you are in control; it means free will in the sense of rational behaviour within your capacity.

In this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in it's formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society and the government are where freedom is actualized. What I believe he means by this is that without limits we would not know what freedom is. If you could always do what you've always wanted the thought of not being able to do something would be so foreign to you that you would not understand what it was to not have freedom, for that matter you would not understand what having freedom was either.