Free will vs. determinism is an argument as complex, intertwined, and co-dependent as nature vs. nurture or the age-old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first. Philosophers have contemplated the question for ages, and arrived at no satisfactory answer.
While considering which topic to address for this assignment, I posed the question of free will vs. determinism to a philosopher friend, whose response was “I don’t care.” He feels that the question is not worth asking because it will not impact our actions anyway. Which ultimately makes him somewhat of a determinist I suppose, though I’m sure he would disapprove of being classified as such.
In the end, I settled on the topic of free will vs. determinism because lately it seems I am often faced with situations where my ability to exercise my free will choice is thwarted when other individuals exercise their own free will. Although, on second thought, maybe I chose the topic because preexisting circumstances, such as having read Walden Two over the summer, caused me to do so. Or perhaps I settled on this topic because it is the topic the Universe meant me to address – which would also explain why I had previously read the Skinner book cited so often in our text.
Free will proponents believe that we have total control over our actions, and that the actions we chose, not external causes, determine the outcome. Proponents of determinism deny free will, believing instead that every action we take is determined by preexisting causes. (text, pg. 144) Fatalism and predestination are extreme forms of determinism that believe that God or The Universe have already determined what will happen, and the any action we take, or choice we think we make ...
... middle of paper ...
...ould have made a different choice that would have changed the outcome.
Throughout this course, I have engaged my oldest child in discussions on the topics covered. He is interested at first, believes he knows the correct answer, and then becomes frustrated when there is no simple or correct answer. His reaction is, I believe, entirely age appropriate. Unfortunately, it seems that many people do not move beyond this need for simple answers and dismissal of complexities.
Socrates said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He believed that the point of life was to learn from living. If we rigidly adhere to any one line of thinking, if we fail to examine and question our actions and thoughts, if we fail to examine our life, if we fail to learn from our mistakes, then what is the point indeed?
Works Cited
1) http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/84
The question of our freedom is one that many people take for granted. However, if we consider it more closely it can be questioned. The thesis of determinism is the view that every event or happening has a cause, and that causes guarantee their effects. Therefore given a cause, the event must occur and couldn’t occur in any other way than it did. Whereas, the thesis of freewill is the view that as human beings, regardless of a cause, we could have acted or willed to act differently than we did. Determinism therefore, states that the future is something that is fixed and events can only occur in one way, while freewill leaves the future open. Obviously a huge problem arises between these two theses. They cannot both be true as they contradict one another. In this essay I hope to find a solution to this problem.
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretion, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events, including human actions, are determined by forces outside the will of an individual, contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skepticism in a strong systematic order.
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
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.
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. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
this essay encounters the apparent confrontation between determinism and our sense of agency as rational actors in the universe. In an attempt to make sense of this issue and the implications involved in dealing with it, several forms of argument will be explored. Finally I tentatively offer that the most parsimonious explanation currently lies in a form of compatibilist approach.
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).
Determinism is when a person's behavior is considered to be affected by internal or external forces while free will is an individual's ability to make most decisions. If we agree with a deterministic description of psychology, then we can precisely foretell human behavior, which results in psychology being in a similar field of science as physics or chemistry. According to Watson, (1982:2), determinism is "the view roughly, that every event and state of affairs is causally necessitated by preceding events and states of affairs." On the other hand according to Gross, (2009:210) free will is, "the common sense, laypersons understanding of the term is that the actor could have behaved differently given the same circumstances." This essay will explore the different approaches to free will and determinism from different theorists for example behaviorists, neo-behaviorists and so on.
Socrates is correct when he says the “the unexamined life is not worth living” In order to discuss why Socrates is correct, I would like to discuss these various points which consist of: the significance as well as the underlying meaning of his quote “the unexamined life is not worth living”, the difference between an unexamined life and an examined life, specific examples, the importance of a person living an examined life and lastly, whether or not I’m living an examined life.
Socrates was considered by many to be the wisest man in ancient Greece. While he was eventually condemned for his wisdom, his spoken words are still listened to and followed today. When, during his trial, Socrates stated that, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45), people began to question his theory. They began to wonder what Socrates meant with his statement, why he would feel that a life would not be worth living. To them, life was above all else, and choosing to give up life would be out of the picture. They did not understand how one would choose not to live life just because he would be unable to examine it.
I think it’s important to first examine the circumstances of what was going on when Socrates stated “the unexamined life is not worth living.” To really get a sense of how critical the situation