Debating Free-Will: An Exploration of Perspectives

Part One, The Thesis:
Free-will, the ability one has to act without the constraint of necessity or fate. It the power a person has to act at one’s discretion. Do we really have the freedom to experience what we want, when we choose? Some would say yes while some others will say no, philosophers have argued about this topic and there hasn’t been any particular conclusion yet. It is the ability a person or animal has to choose his or her course of actions. Although most philosophers suppose that the concept of free-will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. However, there are two sides of freewill, the ones that agree that everyone has freewill and the other that disagrees that everyone has freewill. These types of

It upholds freedom as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize independence, freedom of choice and also emphasizing constitutional freedom. In order for humans to make their choices freely, morality has to be involved. In the sense that humans can be able to understand the choices they make, the effects the choices they make may have and whether it is good or evil. This is quite easy to understand and I believe that we all have free-will to do whatever we want at whatever time we want to because human behavior is the result of the decisions based on free-will rather than the results of deterministic influences.
Part two, the other side: Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue