Are We Free or Determined?

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
We are determined-not free
Other People influence our decisions
People limit our choices
Our situation limits our choices
Government limits our choices
Nature as a limiting factor
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

The question of whether we are free or determined has aroused a never-ending debate between two groups with differing opinions. Those who believe in the view of free will say man is free enough to determine what he/she wants and that the choice for self-determination is real and actual.

On the other hand, those who believe that they a re powerless to make decisions believe that man’s actions are determined. According to them, there is no point at which a person will ever fully determine him/herself because of the nature of the world he/she lives where everything has already been decided by other preceding factors. The paper borrows the view of this group that our actions, thoughts, and behaviors are determined and that people have no power to make their own free will choices.

We are determined-not free

Though people believe in freedom, they often aspire to show how free they are and how far the freewill goes. However, in essence, man is not free but determined. In fact, Rachels (2011) tells us, “The more we learn about the causes of human behavior, the less likely it seems that we are free” (p. 109).

This claim can be proved when man’s life or freewill is put to test using the following parameters that prove that man is not free as he/she might think. He further says, “People are never responsible for their actions because their actions are caused by forces beyond their control” (Rachels, 2011, p. 96)

Other People influence our decisions

Determination of a decision as being right or wrong is always tested against certain past parameters that are already set to define what comprises a right or a wrong decision. A decision to do the right thing in the society, for example, is determined by the moral standards that have been set by the society. Therefore, the choice to make whatever decision we wish, whether right or wrong is never ours.

The decision to do the right thing has always been informed by the expectations of the society, which always attaches a form of reward for doing the right thing. Rachel informs, “the debate of freewill has been about nature of human actions and its relationship to moral responsibility” (p. 118). Therefore, what we do, whether right or wrong, is due to our subconscious expectation for a reaction from the society. We are therefore dependent on the society.

A person’s decision to dress this way or that way is due to the expectations of the society that one dresses up. Secondly, it is due to what the society has set as a dress code. Therefore, to create a certain picture, the person will choose a mode of dressing that will derive a specific reaction from society thus subjecting the person’s choice to what the person expects from the society. This shows how our decisions are abstract in all ways.

People limit our choices

People around us limit the choices we make in most of the things we aspire to do or have. This claim is informed by societal norms and expectations. Human nature has forced people to be custodians of humanity and its existence.

This reveals why the people around us will tend to limit the choices we make especially if they are not good as per the societal norms and or for human survival (Rachels, 2011, p.100). What people expect out of us, whether at the work place, church, home, and school stops us from doing some things that are not acceptable to them.

Thus, we only limit ourselves to what they expect. As humans, we have a sense of belonging and wanting to be identified in a certain group setup. Naturally, all groups have rules that regulate them. Thus, man, being a social animal with a need to fit in a group, will always have to abide by the group’s norms, which limit the choices he/she makes at the end. The revelation is a great example of how people around us limit our choices.

The views we all wish to create towards the outside world usually limit us in the plans we wish to make. One will always look over the shoulder whenever he/she wishes to make choices that he/she knows very well are not acceptable to the people around him/her. The role we have towards the people around us and authorities as well tend to guide our choice of decisions. If one makes certain decisions that are oblivious of the law, there are consequences to face.

Our situation limits our choices

Situations also limit our choices. Thus, they confine us within the category of deterministic people. Situations are the positions in which we find ourselves. They can be totally out of control. When a situation happens, there are specific solutions that can be employed to take care of it.

Thus, such a case, though beyond us, tends to limit what choices we can make at that particular moment. Rachel contends, “Many individuals would not break the law had their circumstances been different” (p.100). The limitation is always within the solutions of the situation. Choices are always varied. They can be very wide in scope. A choice becomes relevant only if it is the solution or close to the solution.

One might think that, by coming up with an original idea or solution to a problem, he/she is a libertarian. This is not so because the limitations created by a situation forces one to take a tunnel vision in search to answers. This tunnel vision simply narrows ones ideas to specifics. An example to this is while one encounters a tire burst while travelling in a car. The situation has several solutions. However, only one or two can be the best considering other circumstances.

Government limits our choices

Society limits our choices in a paternalistic manner. For example, the government makes laws to govern people. In a broad sense, these laws simply demarcate the amount of choices we can make by either abolishing them or by simply limiting them to a certain extent. The government, for instance, makes laws that govern different sectors of the economy. Such laws dictate or set a framework of what can be studied at school under what setup.

This therefore limits the choices we have to what has been prescribed in the law. Our religions and religious groups also govern our choices in a big way. Some religions strictly prescribe what food someone can eat and what he/she cannot eat. Religions prescribe the acts that are forbidden and the ones that are acceptable. These forbidden acts are actually a limitation, as set up by the society in which we live.

Somehow, we have to abide by them to be accepted unconditionally as members of the society. Society also limits our choices of things such as fun in a bid to protect us from harm. Substances like drugs are forbidden in the society because of the kind of damage they cause to people’s bodies though they give them a lot of pleasure besides making them feel good. This simply brings out the society’s role of being the custodian of our interests. Hence, it qualifies to be a limiting factor to the choices we can make.

Nature as a limiting factor

Natural occurrence is a limiting factor to the choices we make because nature, in its mighty way, always takes up control of situations. We can only cope with it. When we wish to take a flight to different destinations, nature, in its form, can change the weather to the extent that the flights have to be cancelled due to the dangers that the weather might cause.

In this instance, the choice not to travel or the choice to cancel the flight is not our own but that of nature as a limiting factor. Rachels (2011) contends, “According to quantum mechanics, the laws that govern the behavior of matter are probabilistic” (p. 112). Our own bodies as they are can naturally function to a certain extent only. As much as we might wish our bodies to function differently, we cannot do some things as we wish. This explains the phenomena as the power of nature as a limiting factor that renders people determinists.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I find that, though the debate about libertarians and determinists is a never-ending one, determinists sound more convincing in proving that man is hugely deterministic in nature. Man’s nature has made him/her live in a predetermined society with most of the happenings being things that have already had precedence or rather a history.

Rachel (2011) argues that, “The whole worry over free will begins with the idea that, if an action is part of the great casual chain, it cannot be free” (p. 117). The argument reveals why man’s solution to a problem always takes a tunnel vision approach.

Reference

Rachels, James. Problems from Philosophy. New York: McGrawhill, 2011.

Click Here To Order Now!