Do Humans Have Free Will?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The concept of free will has been used to understand human behavior and what drives people to do certain actions. Various philosophers have advanced different arguments that talk about the concept of free will and how it influences human behavior and actions. Human beings make different choices which affect what they do and how they react to different situations in various environments.

Free will is described as the power by an individual to choose to do certain actions without being influenced or coerced by external factors. This paper will analyze the concept of free will critically by analyzing arguments by various philosophers to determine its validity.

Thomas Nagel argues that human beings use their mental capabilities to think more critically about different issues that affect them. Nagel argues humans have a subjective view of the world and this gives them a strong physical and mental ability to comprehend what surrounds them. He advances the notion that humans will improve their understanding in future to distinguish what constitutes physical and mental aspects of life.

However, he takes the view that some humans are not guided only by laws to act and they are not able to exercise their own free will. Richard Taylor argues that human actions are not easily controllable and they occur due to the will of the agent that makes them happen. He takes the view that the agent is a human who starts and controls how the action proceeds and its impacts. He argues that there are no conditions that make an agent act the way he does and this argument advances the theory of free will (MacKinnon, 2011, p. 93).

A.J. Ayer argues that human action is determined by causal laws which drive humans to do certain acts. Ayer takes the view that humans can act freely and their behavior is influenced by certain rules which they internalize after living in certain areas. He insists that causal laws help humans exercise their own reasoning in various situations and this hinders them from exercising their own free will. This makes it difficult for human beings to exercise their own free will when they do certain acts.

Human beings apply their own wisdom to overcome certain challenges and this wisdom is influenced by various moral principles that guide them (MacKinnon, 2011, p. 97). Stephen Cahn argues that human behavior makes them apply logic in whatever they do. This makes them categorize different ideas as true, false or uncertain. He argues that the concept of free will cannot be verified because human beings are unable to detect what they will do in future without any evidence.

Nagel makes it clear that humans have conscious personalities that shape their perspectives of both mental and physical aspects of various situations. Therefore, he maintains that human imagination is limitless and enables different individuals to improve the way they think. Saul Kripke has taken a divergent opinion regarding Nagels argument that human imagination is limitless. He argues that Nagels views do not add a lot of weight to the concept of free will.

Richard Taylor takes the view that causal systems that are developed by humans control the way people act and behave. He takes the view that these factors make a person choose what he wants to do without being influenced by any external other factor (MacKinnon, 2011, p 105). However, critics have pointed out that Taylors arguments lack merit because they do not show how humans are agents that influence the way different actions occur.

Ayer argues that humans rely on causal laws to shape their own moral actions and this makes them distinguish between right and wrong. He reveals that humans have the ability to decide what they want to do but moral principles which they are accustomed to place limitations on how they behave and act.

Therefore, they are not able to exercise free will because causal laws restrict them from doing certain actions that are considered immoral. J.L Austin criticized Ayers arguments by asserting that some humans are able to act freely in areas where causal laws do not exist.

He argued that Ayers philosophical position was flawed and because some men do not care about moral principles when they choose to do certain actions. Cahn (2009) argues that the concept of time makes it difficult for men to exercise their own free will (p. 57). His arguments are similar to other philosophers arguments that human behavior is not always controlled by a set of predetermined factors.

It is clear that human beings do not have the ability to exercise their own free will. There are other factors which influence human attitudes and how people behave in different environments. Nagels arguments about limitless human imagination are not true because some people learn through observation and exposure.

Therefore, their actions will be influenced by what they see and learn in different environments and this makes them choose to do certain actions. This makes it difficult for human beings to exercise their own free will. Taylors assertions that human beings are at liberty to choose their own actions is not factual because it fails to show the impact of the environment on human behavior.

Taylors arguments are not valid because he fails to appreciate the impact of culture and other factors that motivate people to do certain actions (Cahn, 2007, p. 61). His argument also fails to take note that some human beings learn from past events and these experiences have profound effects on their behavior.

Many people ensure their actions conform to acceptable norms and standards of behavior in areas they live. This makes them more considerate and responsible in the way they act. They do not have any free will because they understand consequences that are likely to result from their actions. Moral and causal laws guide humans to think about benefits and disadvantages they are likely to experience from certain engagements.

However, in some situations, humans act without taking time to think about consequences they are likely to experience from their actions. Some of them choose to disregard causal laws and engage in actions that are considered immoral in societies where they live. They are able to choose for themselves what they want to do even when the actions they choose to engage in are harmful to them and other people (Pojman and Fieser, 2007, p. 42).

Ayers arguments regarding the concept of free will are valid. However they do not adequately address how humans make their own choices whenever they face different situations. Humans are affected by dominant moral ideals which make them reflect on what they are about to do and results they are likely to get. These moral ideals make humans understand that they are responsible for their own actions and this influences the way they behave and act.

Therefore, external factors motivate people to engage in certain actions. However, in some cases, people disregard moral principles that are supposed to shape their behavior. This makes them engage in habits that do not conform to moral principles observed in their specific societies. They decide to do these actions to achieve their own ends (Pojman and Fieser, 2007, p. 49). Human beings have different perspectives of what is right and wrong and this makes them approach various issues they face differently.

Human beings interpret various issues differently depending on what they learn and observe in different environments. They choose different places to do various actions that satisfy their individual interests and needs. Cultural, religious and educational influences expose human beings to a wide variety of concepts and they impact the way people make different choices that affect their lives.

Therefore, humans are not able to exercise their own free will whenever they choose to do certain actions. From the arguments advanced by Cahn, individuals cannot always predict how they will react to different situations they come across. This shows that they use knowledge they acquired in the past to handle different issues they face in future. The results they get from different actions they choose to pursue differ a lot (Pojman and Fieser, 2007, p. 67).

In conclusion, the concept of free will is not valid because there are various factors that influence how human beings act and behave in different settings. These factors make humans choose specific actions they intend to do.

References

Cahn, S.M. (2009). Exploring philosophy:An introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacKinnon, B. (2011). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Pojman, L.P. & Fieser, J. (2007). Introduction to philosophy: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Do Humans Have Free Will?

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)