Category: Free Will

The debates on the topic of the existence of free will have been held by people for centuries. Yet, nowadays, there is still a lack of unity among philosophers, who usually tend to support one of three main ideas, hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. The first one constitutes a belief that there is no free will in nature and that all of the actions are already predetermined. In other words, there is always only one possible scenario for the future which will occur in reality. The second approach, soft determinism, attempts to reconcile the ideas of determinism and free will, which at first glance seem completely different. According to this perspective, a person can have multiple options for actions, but all of them are predetermined by the past (Huemer, 2016). Moreover, despite the fact that the person can do any of the actions, the past events eventually influence his decision to choose only one of the options.

Finally, the libertarian view on free will implies that the latter exists and it excludes the possibility of determinism. I think that this approach is most relevant and ultimately the true one because it clearly articulates the idea that reality can change depending on a particular choice made by people. It postulates that every moment when a person has to make a choice, they become aware of their freedom since they realize that they control the situation at hand. Libertarianism disproves the view of hard determinism since the latter does not have any evidence of the fact that all events are predetermined and simply rests on the idea that free will is an illusion. Thus, it makes it possible to adhere to libertarianism since it offers a sense of freedom of choice as its evidence. Similarly, soft determinism contradicts libertarianism because it assumes that actions can be both free and caused, which is incompatible with the idea of the sense of freedom of choice.

Reference

Huemer, M. (2016). Free will and determinism in the world of minority report. In S. Schneider (Ed.), Science fiction and philosophy: From time travel to superintelligence (2^nd ed.) (pp. 104113). John Wiley & Sons.

As Augustine personally encountered the problem of being too imperfect for Christianity and Christian standards, he founded his concept of original sin within Christianity (Catholic Online, 2019). According to Augustine, God gifted Adam and Eve free will to accept his love and live in Paradise or to reject it (Philosophy Vibe, 2018). When Adam and Eve rejected the love of God, he sent them to Earth and forced their descendants to possess Gods rejection due to Original Sin. Applying Augustines idea of free will to the concept of an all-knowing God, one could think that after God deprived Adam and Eve of free will, the future choices we make are made by God himself. However, Augustine stated multiple times that God does not give the privilege of wealth and that it is not Gods decision to make someone poor or to make someone fail (The School of Life, 2015). Augustine explains the free will we express now as Gods gift of a second chance. People are free to choose a righteous way to live and go to heaven afterward or use their free will as they want.

In terms of free will be the second chance for people to eventually come back to God, the idea of all-knowing God could be reconciled with human free will. However, it is unknown whether Augustines understanding of free will was impacted by his subjective goals, as he lived a sinful life himself (Catholic Online, 2019). In my opinion, the overall idea of an all-knowing God implies an absence of free will. I think that God is only there to guide people and not interfere directly with their actions. I believe in the idea of loving God, but the all-knowing aspect contradicts the concept of redemption of original sin, in my opinion. I think that the concept of reincarnation that I believe in fits the idea of the journey of returning to God.

References

Catholic Online. (2019). St. Augustine of Hippo HD. [Video]. YouTube.

Philosophy Vibe. (2018). The Augustinian theodicy (Extract from The problem of evil). [Video]. YouTube.

The School of Life. (2015). Philosophy  Augustine. [Video]. YouTube.

Since the beginning of time or rather rational thinking, people have contemplated their purpose, reasons for existing and the self. There are those who believe that people have a soul, which expresses itself in a way of emotions and is what guides our lives. But another view is competingthe physical, material frames that are placed upon us, stripping of any freedom and choice. Philosophy is a science that has been researching these questions for the longest time. The concepts of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism have emerged as a possible explanation to human attitudes and behaviors.

The most basic theory of human attitude and behavior is determinism. It denies the existence of free choice, confining peoples lives into a predetermined set of actions. Determinism is a very physical and material view that bases itself on the circumstances and cause and effect (Butts 10). Its main points state that people are defined by the genes that they have received from the previous generations and by the environmental factors. There is no way to change the genetic material, so it is agreeable that this part of the equation is determined, even though in the current age there is genetic experimentation with the information stored in the DNA. And the second pointenvironmental surroundings, also completely negates the free choices in life. But planet Earth is a large enough place for a person to be able to change the setting they reside in. There is no denying that people are limited by the ability to move around due to their physical state, connection to others and their age, since as a child it is hard to choose a place to grow up in. Still a persons will and determination will not stop anyone who has physical troubles, as they can find a way to accomplish their wants. Todays world of technology made communication over great distances very easy, so anyone can escape into any part of the world and keep contact with the loved ones. But a limit is set when a child is growing up; they have no choice to live wherever they want. This factor eventually disappears, once a person grows up. So for the physical determination the only limitation are the material boundaries of the planet, without considering the possibility of building a space craft to travel to other worlds. It would be safe to assume that a persons environment is limited by the geography of the planet and the amount of possible places to visit, which is enormous but is nonetheless limited. What is not framed is the persons individual choice of what area to pick. Depending on their inner want, they could go to the north or the tropics. Considering all of this it is presumed that the emotional desire is also determined by the previous genetic information and the up-bringingnurture. So the question is what exactly determines this inner want to choose the environment? A simple cluster of information absorbed from the media, parents, peers and other social mediums, plus the beneficial and not so much DNA coding, could not possibly create an individuality, as genes are a simple and emotionless gathering of facts and ideas. The way a person interprets and uses these ideas and information is exactly what makes each one unique. Compared to other theories determinism seems to be on the right track, having some useful explanations and ideas but it lacks the grand picture of emotion and originality.

Another theory is compatibilism, which is much closer to the truth. It is defined by both deterministic qualities and free will. The thinkers of this direction acknowledge that some things in the world are determined (Mele 103). As mentioned previously they are the boundaries of the planet, human physical abilities and the physical laws of nature. But in reality there is no real proof that after meditating for 50 years or more or less, a person could not learn how to fly. To make an argument easy, it is assumed that it is impossible and thus this limitation does exist. What makes this theory stronger is that it accepts the possibility of free will existence. Free will is defined as the ability of a person to make a choice not influenced and forced by anyone from the outside world (Pereboom 7). Ability to choose encompasses human soul and emotions. It is an unquantifiable entity that is very hard to pinpoint. The limitation of language and concepts creates a problem for compatibilism in the precise definition of free will. From one perspective nothing in this world is made by choice. People are born without really wanting it, someone else decides for them. Once they are born, they have a structure of society and family to follow. As a childs mind is developing and cannot properly judge what is happening around, from lack of experience and knowledge, parents or guardians are the ones who have to take the young person through lifes steps. For children of young age free will can be seen when they playthe great use of imagination based on very little sensual information from the world. For example, at age 5 a child would not be able to rationalize why the world is the way it is, the little human beings free will and choice are limited by their age. They cannot go out late and drink alcohol, but it would be wrong to consider this as the absence of freedom. It is clear that a person receives this free will, once they start to consciously analyze the world around them and themselves. Considering the facts mentioned above it would be safe to say that the democratic nature of compatibilism is moving in the right direction.

A theory which is based purely on freedom of choice is called libertarianism. It is obvious that it takes the said freedom to the extreme (Brennan1). Just as determinism is basing everything on physics and complete absence of choice, libertarianism advocates that people are completely free agents and have the choice to do anything they want (Duncan and Tibor 3). This could theoretically be true if a person lived on a privately owned island, being the king and making own rules and laws. But even then they would be unable, for example, to build weapons and send rockets to bomb other countries. So in reality, a person living in this world has no absolute freedom, as people are social beings, living in communities interdependent in the functions of society. The fact that there are moral rules, such as not hurting another human being without a justifiable reason, already creates a determined boundary. From where specifically this innate good comes from, no one can say, it is called a part of human nature. Whats definite is that humans did not create the universe, physical laws and the ethical principles that a properly and responsibly behaving human being abides by. As this proves, human nature cannot be chosen because we are born into it. This already negates the theory of libertarianism. But the whole question of freedom is very much displaced from the argument at hand. If the air we breathe and the kinds of animals we hunt are considered a limitation of free choice and will, then people are simply marionettes, which is false. Even the fact that there is a limit in the number of possibilities allowed by the physical and moral laws, does not take away the true freedom since everyone has a unique way of searching for those possibilities. A very obvious and simple example of free will can be seen when analyzing music, arts and imagination in general. There is an unlimited amount of combinations that one can create. In music there is an everlasting ordering of notes and rhythms, this is proved by the enormous number of musicians in the world today. Painting, dancing, singing and building are all unlimited in the distribution of their elements. Compatibilism is definitely the theory that comes closest to the absolute truth. Yes, humans are limited in certain things, concrete and immovable, but the specific way in which every individual chooses to do or think is unique and free. In reality free will does not exist, because the definition of freedom is wrong from the very beginning. The closest anything comes to free will is a persons emotional predisposition towards something. If a person was born with genes that favored kindness and then during the upbringing kindness was reinforced by the environment, the person becomes determined or defined by this kindness. The fact that they will not be able to hurt anyone innocent purposefully for their whole life, does not take away their free choice. Anyone is free to want anything. It depends on the person, how far they want to go with this want. In basic terms everything can be framed into the predetermined cause and effect world, even such things as kindness, respect and love. But the fact that human beings are given the ability to think about their existence, consciously speculate about the good and evil, moral or not so much, self evolvement and justice, proves that we are masters of our destiny and are free to choose any path of desire but there is no guarantee that these choices will be left without consequences, affecting and determining the future of people around or of that person in particular.

Philosophy is considered to be one of the oldest sciences in the world. When humans did not have the tools and mechanisms to study nature, they had the greatest mechanism of alltheir brain. People have long been trying to find answers to the questions of life, reasons for existing, free will, soul and the right choice. It is true that society defines our behavior and land limits our dwelling places but there is no limit to the imagination and exploration of unreachable galaxies and so, this would be enough to say that human beings are free, in their mind, even if they are bound by shackles and walls.

References

Brennan, Jason. Libertarianis: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, United States: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Butts, Robert. A primer on Determinism. Massachusets, United States: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986. Print.

Duncan, Craig, and M. Tibor. Libertarianism: For and against. Maryland, United States: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.

Mele, Alfred. Free Will and Luck. New York, United States: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.

Pereboom, Derk. Free Will. Indianapolis, United States: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009. Print.

For centuries, ethics and moral philosophy scholars have been pondering the question of the extent people should be held accountable when acting in a particular manner. In one of the last learning modules, the discussion was focused on determinism and the free will of a human being. On one side of the scale, there is an existential context that implies that people are subject to absolute freedom of will, holding them accountable for every action and its complication for the self and society. On the other side, however, there is the premise of determinism that implies peoples inability to take responsibility for any action due to the actions being a prerequisite of an antecedent action or experience (Blount et al., 2018). While every option seems rather extreme in the modern context, the primary question of this paper is to look into the problematics of applying determinism to todays socio-cultural landscape.

One of the major arguments against free will and peoples ability to make decisions is the existence of various factors, both social and historical, that consciously or subconsciously weigh in when making a decision, Present in the form of impulses, people become immediately affected by their previous experiences to act in a manner implied by society rather than created by a human. Such an argument raises a series of questions, primarily concerning the strategies to make use of the determinist theory.

Essentially, suppose determinism implies that peoples actions are curated by past known and unknown experiences. In that case, one can assume that a certain socio-cultural background and similar experiences may result in a similar decision-making process. Thus, if to take a group of people from the same social and demographic context and place them in the same system of socio-cultural environment, their decision-making, with time, will be based on the same beliefs and views. Hence, the primary hypothesis here will be that people, while incapable of pursuing free will, can be trained to be exposed to a favorable environment leading to the most beneficial decisions and actions for them and society.

However, the complexity of the modern world and possible contributing factors make it extremely challenging to outline antecedent experiences and memories that would benefit society as a whole. As a result, neither a human being nor the environment could be held accountable for the action, as it is virtually impossible to trace back the cause of a certain action. The complete lack of responsibility thereof will eventually result in chaos, and the end of the world humans know it nowadays.

The criticism of free will, when applied to personal experiences, is especially harmful to the notion of interpersonal relationships. For example, when two people are communicating, any action that does not appeal to another person may result in triggering an impulse and provoking an immediate response such as yelling or using physical aggression. In this case, the person would not be responsible for the action because it was predetermined by something beyond the persons control. If in the same scenario, the person would choose to calmly ignore the behavior or make a polite comment, the responsibility would not concern the person as well. Indeed, according to the researchers opposing free will, deliberation, the act of thorough analysis of the options, is still eventually a result of determinism. In such a case, both morally wrong and morally right responses to the situation would have equally no correlation to the human character and, thus, would be regarded as equally predetermined responses to the situation. The rhetorical question here would be whether people should ever resort to ethics and morality is those actions would never be perceived as the manifestation of their moral character.

On the other hand, however, it would be unreasonable to assume that the phenomenon of free will is entirely applicable in todays social and moral contexts as well. In fact, when people exercise their free will, it does not mean that their choice does not depend on external factors per se. What it does imply, however, is the fact that human beings, while faced with a variety of choices, are prone to follow socially and biologically predetermined impulses or use the power of free will.

For example, in the reading material, students were working with an example of a girl choosing between three ice cream flavors. The doctrine of determinism implies that three options are nothing but an illusion of choice, and picking the strawberry flavor is nothing but a remaining option because the first two are unavailable. According to this philosophical dogma, people find themselves in a system of predetermined factors that motivate the person to subconsciously choose a particular option. However, this system does not eliminate the persons ability to perceive the environment differently and opt for a different outcome. Hence, in a world as complex as it is today, people, although motivated and challenged by the antecedent, are still capable of exercising deliberation and free will and taking moral responsibility for every action.

Reference

Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying lifes tape. Science, 362(6415).

Introduction

Free will has been a controversial concept for many centuries, as there is no way to prove or disprove its existence. However, different philosophical approaches at different times sought to comprehend the essence of the phenomenon and explain its origin. Determinism and libertarianism represent two opposing beliefs about a person and the reasons for his actions. Baron dHolbach argued that freedom is an illusion and the will of man comes from the brain, which dictates only predetermined impulses. Jean-Paul Sartre, on the contrary, described freedom as a unique feature of human beings who are condemned to constant choice.

Baron dHolbach and Determinism

Determinism is philosophical teaching about the lawful universal interconnection and interdependence of the phenomena of objective reality. Determinism, as a term and generalizing concept, serves to designate a class of philosophical concepts that assert or recognize the conditionality and determinability of all existing phenomena of the observed world. It includes a man with his inner, subjective, spiritual world, and some primary, substantial reality (for example, By God  theological determinism, by nature  naturalistic determinism, or by the cosmos  cosmological determinism, and others). However, more often, with the concept of determinism, the philosophical doctrine of the natural causality of all phenomena of the objective world of their universal, natural relationship and interdependence is associated. For the most part, these ideas relate to the world of science and rationale.

Regarding human beings, the central idea of the philosophy of determinism is the inability of a person to avoid fate. Thus, the adherents of the concept assume that every action in the present is defined by the action in the past. Determinism argues that given the complete physical state of the world at any point in time, only one future sequence of events is physically possible (List 88). Thus, everything in the world is governed by cause and effect, which are predetermined in advance and cannot be changed. Free will implies that there is an alternative for the agent when choosing an action. In other words, a person must make a choice in favor of one or another effect for the same cause. However, determinism argues that no such alternative exists for the agent. For any situation, there is only one possible course of action, which is predetermined by past events. Therefore, determinism and free will are incompatible since this philosophy in principle denies the existence of the possibility of choice.

Baron DHolbach was a materialist and naturalist, focusing on the study of the physical objective world. Thus, he believed that a person cannot even for a moment avoid control of nature. Humans and their actions are determined by explicit or concealed causes over which they have no power (Pettit 00:01:24). DHolbach argued that a person is not free since all his or her desires are dictated by nature. He explains that man is necessarily conditioned by the impressions he receives from the external world, by the ideas which come into being within his brain (as cited in Vauléon 113). Moreover, the philosopher notices that people think that they are free, which is a delusion. Any of their actions are predetermined by external causes, but their consciousness presents it as free will.

According to the ideas of determinism and DHolbach, there is only one version of an event in the past. However, a person is inclined to imagine alternatives that, nevertheless, did not occur. Accordingly, people think about the future, idealizing many possible ways. However, DHolbach believes that this is not correct since the future, like the past, has only one predetermined path of development. Thus, the philosopher claims that the will is merely a modification of the brain, and a brain is just a physical object (Pettit 00:04:20). As with any other physical object, the human brain obeys the laws of nature. Thus, any desire which prompts action is external and predetermined. DHolbach also emphasizes that a person is guided exclusively by pleasure or survival, which determines his motivation. Thus, humans have no choice but are under the control of either natural or social circumstances.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Libertarianism

Libertarianism takes a completely opposite position to determinism regarding the consideration of free will. The philosophical theory assumes that free will requires alternative possibilities, and that the world actually offers such alternative possibilities: we do indeed have the genuine choice (List 17). Thus, libertarianism argues that determinism cannot be considered at the same time as the idea of free will. Followers of the direction see the concept as the ability to act or not to act according to the will. They believe that people are actually choosing from the many options which exist in any situation. A person is neither compelled to act nor do it randomly, which together constitutes his free will. However, people also bear moral responsibility for all decisions made, which form their moral character.

In contrast to determinists, libertarians argue that the future is not predetermined and is created at the moment a person commits an act. The strongest evidence for the existence of free will is an inner sense of freedom. Libertarians argue that by rejecting this assumption, a person excludes any evidence which comes from experience, including determinism. The theory considers a person as a combination of two factors: personality and moral character. The first is formed under the influence of external factors such as upbringing, environment, and circumstances of life. However, the moral self is different, as it plays a key role in decision-making. This part has a will independent of the circumstances, which leads to unexpected behavior of a person, which may contradict his or her upbringing. Thus, the individual obeys the rules of pleasure and survival, but the moral character can resist them on the basis of moral responsibility. Thus, libertarianism argues that human free will is the ability to resist natural factors and make choices.

Jean-Paul Sartre is a French existentialist philosopher who denied the existence of God, and therefore predestination. The philosopher formulated a statement that later began to express the essence of the whole existentialist theory, appearing as existence precedes essence (Gosetti-Ferencei 51). He denied the possibility of the existence of a definite goal prepared for a person by factors beyond his control. The main differences between man, and the philosopher, represented self-consciousness and the absence of a specific goal. Created objects have a certain purpose, while a person is born without it, and only in the course of life does he or she acquire it. The only thing which, according to Sartre, people cannot change or choose is the right to freedom. They are initially born free and constantly shape the future with their actions.

Existentialism, in this case, is an extension of libertarianism, since Sartre explains that a person is not only condemned to freedom but also bears involuntary responsibility throughout life. The philosopher does not deny that people do not choose the conditions of their birth and upbringing. However, once they are aware of themselves, they are fated to make choices all the time, which determine the essence. Existence is a fact, while essence develops over time, consisting of the actions which give meaning to life. Thus, Sartre asserts that there is no God who could bestow a specific purpose, and the responsibility for everything lies only on the shoulders of a man.

The philosopher is preoccupied with the infinite amount of choice which is available to man. He believes that such primordial freedom is confusing and causes anxiety. Sartre argues that people can lead any life and become what they want to be since they have no restrictions. However, each act reveals not only the essence but also what a person should be. Such responsibility is a burden on people and makes them feel fear and anxiety. As libertarianism, existentialism discusses the morality of certain human actions. Sartre believes that any choice must be made in accordance with the essence. Thus, a person must constantly maintain his self-awareness and independence, not imitate objects, and not objectify others.

Despite the fact that Sartre considered freedom as a burden, he also condemned life without striving for it. He denied the virtue of people who accept everything that happens and do not study alternatives. Thus, by not using all the possibilities presented, the person is guilty of restricting freedom, consequently denying the essence and nature of man as a free being self-conscious creature. Thus, the philosopher believes that all is given to people in existence and freedom. They can use these components to create their essence and fill it with meaning through choice and action.

The Position Chosen

It is difficult to abandon one or another approach since it is basically impossible to prove the incorrectness of the views presented. However, the determinism approach makes one think about what, in principle, cannot be grasped. As Baron dHolbach argued, the brain is a biological product, and therefore the creation of nature. Probably, the desire of a person to realize himself as a free being is a necessity and an illusion that was created for people. In this case, any doubt about the predetermination of what is happening is defined in advance, which makes any action or thought meaningless. In my opinion, this approach does not correlate with the essence of philosophy. This science triumphs human thought and the desire to know the world through ones own self. Thus, determinism is more suitable for natural sciences since it implies observation exclusively.

As Sartre reasoned, the choice fills the human being with meaning and gives it essence. The approach of libertarianism and existentialism seems to be the most correct, precisely from a humanistic and philosophical perspective. Philosophy puts a person at the center of the study, and not uncontrolled processes occurring around him or her. If determinism considers people as part of a natural mechanism, libertarianism presents them as separate independent entities. Thus, the acceptance of free will as an innate right of human beings seems to be the most correct.

Conclusion

Determinism and libertarianism are two opposing persuasions that explain the causes of human actions. On the one hand, the future is predetermined, and any choice is an illusion. On the other hand, only the fact of existence is defined in advance for people, while all actions shape their future. In any case, a person is not yet able to comprehend the truths regarding such complex matters. However, the ideas of libertarianism seem to be more humanistic, while determinism is more applicable to the natural sciences.

References

Baron dHolbach on Hard Determinism: There is no Free Will. YouTube, uploaded by Gordon Pettit, 2020. Web.

Gosetti-Ferencei, Jennifer. On Being and Becoming: An Existentialist Approach to Life. Oxford University Press, 2020.

List, Christian. Why Free Will Is Real. Harvard University Press, 2019.

Vauléon, Florian. Reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau through the Prism of Chess. University of Michigan Press, 2019.

People use their free will to make decisions every day: what to eat for breakfast, when to leave home, how much time to spend on social media, and many others. The choice is often quick and subconscious; the current pace of living simply does not leave much time to analyze the causes and consequences of a chosen course. However, sometimes, people put significant effort into decision making and, in a way, determine their future. Numerous factors, such as environment, upbringing, and social connections, affect human choices, but they do not take away the responsibility for the consequences of individual actions.

Free Will Theories

It is challenging to work with a broad and wage idea of a free will, although philosophers worldwide have touched on it. As Lavazza (2019) points out, there is no universally accepted definition of it. Thus, any discussion about the existence of human free will is more about the points of view than an absolute truth. Some philosophers state that peoples behavior is predetermined by their circumstances and cannot be changed instantly at the moment of decision making. This view assumes that humans are not responsible for their actions, as they cannot affect the result. Subsequently, people would think less about those potentially affected by them by separating themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Others consider human desires to follow a specific path of action to be the main propelling force behind the events. In this case, people carry either partial or full responsibility for their actions (List et al., 2020). Robert M. Chisholm, a libertarian philosopher, does not deny the effect of circumstances on peoples decisions, but separates them from individuals reaction, leaving some responsibility in place (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). While philosophers did not come to a single conclusion about the free will, they have presented several possibilities on this subject to be studied and discussed further.

Roderick Chisholm on Free Will

Chisholm supports the combined influence of the world and the persons free will on the individuals choice-making but states that people are responsible for their reactions and decisions as mindful and social beings. He wrote that, in some cases, in doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen and nothing  no one  causes us to cause those things to happen (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016, p. 62). Chisholms views take into account more factors than opposing theories, as he divides the responsibility for the events taking place.

Most decision-making occurs in a complex environment: past and present experiences, a particular atmosphere, and timing. Moreover, a persons moral upbringing and intelligence play a part in their choices. While humans cannot control major physical and social forces, they can choose how to behave about them, and this reaction is their responsibility (List et al., 2020). This approach analyses more factors than supporting solely free will or determinism.

The Opponents of Chisholms Theory

Pereboom and Caruso do not support Chisholms theory about free will. According to them, free will is an illusion, but this does not affect our lives (Lavazza, 2019, p. 1). In other words, all peoples actions and decisions are based on biological and physical circumstances, and the feeling of control in the human mind is just a trick played by the brain. In addition, since human natural and social responses are usually directed at the safety of an individual and societys prosperity, there is no actual need for free will.

Not all philosophers connect or even correlate the free will with responsibility and morals. Sometimes people act out of fear or greed, without having any greater good in mind. Peter van Inwagen defines free will as the ability to do otherwise, not necessarily facing the immoral behaviors consequences afterward (as cited in McKenna & Pereboom, 2016, p. 154). This goes back to the problem of defining the free will for the discussion purposes.

Chisholms Theory: Response to Criticism

It would not be proper to consider all the factors that affect human decision making to have the same influence. For example, solar activity is impossible for people to control, political movements require significant social power, and ones irritation while commuting to school can be easily controlled by inner discipline. Yet, all of them may have an effect on ones behavior. Chisholm divides the factors into two groups: the ones people can control and the ones they cannot. The former ones can be considered deterministic, as they are nearly impossible to avoid. The latter ones, including non-reflexive human reactions, can be controlled; thus, people should be responsible for them. The world in which individuals would not affect anything cannot exist (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). Moreover, strict determinism would prevent society from developing, as people would have no motivation to change the world around them for the better.

Chisholm argues against free will being merely an opportunity to choose an alternative action under certain circumstances. As human beings and society members, people would exercise free will through moral dilemmas and face the consequences afterward. He also uses examples of people being confused or misled in making their decisions to show how simplifying the free will to physical actions does not reflect its substance (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). Humans are responsible for their ways of reacting to particular situations and problems.

The Essence of the Free Will

The free will has always been a controversial topic, as for people it is hard to separate their personal influence from the biological or psychological reaction. Philosophers have tried to describe the characteristics of this phenomenon. For example, List defines them as having a goal, alternatives, and inner motivation (List et al., 2020). According to these requirements, any unintentional actions cannot be caused by free will. In their turn, McKenna and Pereboom (2016) put moral responsibility forth as an essential factor. In their interpretation, the exercising of free will is a mindful practice with a set goal. While it can be tempting for humans to put all the responsibility onto higher beings (like God) or natural forces, connecting free will to the moral decisions may lead to further development of the society.

Conclusion

Free will is a complex and hard to comprehend phenomenon that humans may never be able to understand completely. Philosophers have been arguing about its definition and meaning for centuries, yet there is still no universal guideline to exercising the free will. Chisholms theory on it seems more thorough than strictly deterministic and non-deterministic ones. It promotes individual moral responsibility for personal decisions without denying the impossibility of controlling some factors. In the end, people can look deeper and broader into the meaning of the free will and choose the definition that reflects their life views better, as no universal guideline exists to this moment.

References

Lavazza, A. (2019). Why cognitive sciences do not prove that free will is an epiphenomenon. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 326. Web.

List, C., Caruso, G., & Clark, C. (2020). Free will: Real or illusion? A debate. The Philosopher, 108(1), 1-20. Web.

McKenna, M., & Pereboom, D. (2016). Free will: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.

Free will could be described as an ability to choose. People have always wanted to be free, and to achieve this; people gave their lives. Modern people are much more fortunate because they have rights. However, there is still no concept of absolute freedom, and a person cannot be free. If people had absolute freedom, without any limits, prohibitions, and moral norms, then the security of the whole society would be in jeopardy. Responsibility limits freedom and allows one to be responsible for the consistency of choice. Moreover, the phenomenon of fate limits the freedom of will, which is considered within the framework of determinism. Thus, free will is an illusion since this phenomenon is limited by fate and moral, administrative, civil, and criminal liability.

Many literary works depict the conflict between determinism and free will. For example, in Sophocles Oedipus Rex, the protagonist does everything to avoid the prophecy of the Delphic oracle. However, the more actions he takes, the faster the prophecy is fulfilled (Sophocles 19). Likewise, no matter how hard Bulstrode tries to hide his past in George Eliots Middlemarch, coincidences reveal his hypocritical deeds. In turn, in The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho depicts the confrontation between fate and free will. King Melchizedek tells Santiago: At a certain point in our lives, we lose control of whats happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate (Coelho 7). The idea of the work is that a balance is needed between ones own choice and the predestination of fate.

A common theme in Dostoevskys works is human freedom. According to Dostoevsky, human freedom, in order to remain precisely freedom, and not just another kind of necessity, must inevitably include freedom of arbitrariness (Dostoevsky 35). This possibility of arbitrariness is a condition for the moral choice to be not forced but genuinely free. In Crime and Punishment, Rodion Raskolnikov tests the boundaries of his nature. For the supposed good of most people, he decides to kill an old pawnbroker who harms people. Nevertheless, it turns out that not everything is permitted to a person. When a person destroys another person, he ceases to be a person (Dostoevsky 76). When a person exercises will, ignoring the norms of human existence and other peoples interests, including their desire to be free, this is arbitrariness followed by responsibility. Thus, the above literary examples support the idea that free will is limited by responsibility and destiny.

Works Cited

Coelho, Paulo. The Alchemist. Translated by Alan R. Clarke. 1992. Books Library.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Translated by Constance Garnett. 2001. The Project Gutenberg eBook.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Notes from the Underground. Translated by Constance Garnett. 1996. The Project Gutenberg eBook.

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Translated by Ian Johnston. 2004. SLPS.

In philosophy and social sciences, a debate regarding the existence of free will resulted in the creation of a deterministic approach. The classical doctrine of determinism suggests that every event and incident in human life is controlled by laws of nature and mystical powers. Thus, the deterministic views opposed the concepts of freedom and free choice. Some critics of the predetermined existence advocated the freedom of thought. Christian List suggested that humans intrinsic motives should be distinguished from the physical realm and, therefore, not determined by external factors (Menges 3). Thus, the causal determinism of the twentieth century, which was primarily caused by political authority, might be congruent with libertarianism due to the developments in the compatibility theory and Lists account of libertarianism.

The determinism of the twentieth century formed as a result of various processes. The natural desire to analyze and compare all options has inspired humans to create different interpretations of the events in their lives (Willoughby et al. 136). As a result, causal determinism emerged and attempted to describe human existence and all its aspects. According to it, every moment has a particular cause and is governed by universal rules that people are not able to modify. In the twentieth century, E. Fromm proposed the idea that determinism may be connected to the authority and the state (Costello et al. 1). Fromm believed that humans naturally aspire to deny freedom under conditions that endanger their existence or the certainty in their lives. (qtd. in Costello et al. 2). In addition, technological advances allowed people to share their ideas freely and also achieve a more considerable influence. The state and the central parts of authority started using media as an instrument of propaganda. The administration aimed to increase obedience by using informational propaganda. Thus, people became more susceptible to information and the deterministic approach under conditions of constant political pressure. Consequently, the authority and political processes contributed to the increasing dominance of deterministic views.

As opposed to determinism, libertarianism emphasized the possibility of free choices. One of its core concepts was the probability of certain acts having no correlation with incidents, politics, or the state (Pleasants 9). Researchers defined three distinct types of libertarianism to explain its purposes and postulates. First is the non-causal libertarianism, which states that the freedom of actions is not governed by any circumstances (Pleasants 10). The second agent-causal model suggested that the possibility of a free choice is caused directly by the performer of the action (Pleasants 10). Lastly, indeterministic libertarianism describes the process of examining the options under the conditions of an unstable environment (Pleasants 10). To explain the processes of indeterminism, Pleasants stated,

Thus, an action would be indeterministically caused if the following counterfactual holds: were the circumstances leading up to that action to be repeated a number of times with every fact about the actors psychology and external environment remaining the same, sometimes the action would occur as it originally did and sometimes it would not (11).

Libertarianism postulates functioned as an opposition to the deterministic approach and insisted that various parts of human existence are regulations dictated by voluntary decisions.

The contradiction between free will and determinism is most often depicted through a quadripartite model. In this system, the first element is free will which signifies independence of thoughts (Costello et al. 2). The second element, fatalistic determinism, proposes fate as the critical determiner of events in human life (Costello et al. 2). Next, scientific determinism claims that material aspects of life have more significant input (Costello et al. 2). Finally, the concept of unpredictability proposes the chaotic nature of events. It suggests that human life consists of parts that are difficult to predict, and therefore people have to rely on such concepts as luck and chance (Costello et al. 2). The quadripartite model served as a systematic division of the different ideas and emphasized their dissimilarity.

In the process of the debates between determinism and free will, originated a view that attempted to unify both perspectives and denied their incompatibility. The central proposition of compatibilism is a principle that specific actions simultaneously may be caused by the external factors or the agent (Pleasants 11). According to the defenders of the theory, the ideas of incompatibility arise from erroneously idolatrous images of causality (Pleasants 11). The images state that all forms of correlation between acts and external sources are supported by the factors of coercion, pressure, or restriction (Pleasants 11). However, a person may achieve a level of freedom in his actions even under the pressure of the environment. One of the ideas of such freedom is supported by the claim that at least minor choices are situated within the realm of the performer itself. One of such ideas suggested that a person always has a specific range of options at any given moment of time (Menges 2). Contrary to libertarianism and determinism, compatibilists provided arguments supporting the possibility of coexistence of the two opposing theories and attempted to unify them.

One of the supporters of the compatibility of predetermined incidents and free will was C. List. He proposed that the freedom of choice includes the availability of multiple courses of action, while the deterministic approach suggested only one physical option (qtd. in Menges 3). This idea allowed for further integration of the opposing theories because the availability of various choices naturally leads to only one physical action (Menges 3). Another result of such reasoning introduced the fact that human psychological desires may influence the physical realm (Menges 3). If such desires have a certain degree of influence on the environment, it may lead to the idea that some parts of physical determinism are not valid. As an example, human biological thirst causes psychological responses in conciseness and affects an individuals thoughts (Menges 3). This process may also happen in reverse, and instead, thoughts may cause chemical reactions that would initiate physical transformations. Thus, Lists account of liberty contributed to the further investigation and provided a foundation for the potential coexistence of the theories of determinism and libertarianism.

Causal determinism formed as a result of attempts to explain human life in the era of technological advancements. Largely influenced by authority and politics, it was used as a tool to govern societys reasoning and increase obedience. In contrast, libertarianism insists that some aspects of human existence are not controlled by the environment or other external factors. Then, the compatibility theory attempted to unify opposing views and present a unique explanation of the reality of choices. F. Lists ideas promoted the potential unification of the different approaches. Finally, as a result of compatibility theory contributions, the determinism and libertarianism theories may be considered interrelated.

Works Cited

Costello, Thomas H, et al. Escape from Freedom: Authoritarianism-Related Traits, Political Ideology, Personality, and Belief in Free Will/Determinism. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019, pp. 157.

Menges, Leonhard. Free Will, Determinism, and the Right Levels of Description. Philosophical Explorations, vol. 25, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-18.

Pleasants, Nigel. Free Will, Determinism and the Problem of Structure and Agency in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 49, no. 1, 2019, pp. 3-30.

Willoughby, Emily, et al. Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments about the Heritability of Behavior. Behavior Genetics, vol. 49, no. 2, 2019, pp. 136-153.

The problem of free will or the question of determinism is a fundamental problem of human cognition and the nature of ones thoughts. This problem is characterized by a well-known philosophical reflection on whether mans mind generates his being or vice versa, and a great deal depends on it. Whether a persons free will exists or their behavior is dictated by a series of circumstances that can be recreated.

The principle of determinism implies that every event has a cause. On the other hand, human thinking skill is difficult to assess from determinism since thoughts are constantly generated in the human head and make people different. In favor of the idea of determinism, much of the human science evidence correlates human conditions, the process of growing up, and other factors with whom one will become in the future. A curious example is the Scandinavian penitentiary system, in which prisoners fare better than most of the free people on the planet. Nevertheless, Scandinavian countries have relatively low recidivism rates (Lappi-Seppälä, 2018), which may serve as an example to prove that a persons living conditions, and social experiences determine their future behavior.

The philosophical problem of free will lies at the heart of understanding neural network development. Suppose a persons behavior is a direct consequence of something the person has experienced or a consequence of any other cause. In that case, this cause can be recreated, which is what developers of neural networks do. The creation of artificial intelligence challenges the idea of human free will because it shows that human behavior can be recreated. Nevertheless, at the moment, no technology can fully replace humans and their ability to think, but there are already programs capable of creating paintings, music, and books.

Thus, the philosophical question of the existence of free will is constantly being reinterpreted, especially since the advent of neural networks. Several questions remain as to whether a machine with all of the original human data can continue to develop autonomously and whether it can recreate an exact copy of the human mind. The emergence of such technology can have a detrimental effect on the idea of and completely change humanitys view of itself.

Reference

Lappi-Seppälä, T., & Koskenniemi, L. (2018). National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic prisons. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(1), 135-159.

Introduction

Libertarians argue that people are, indeed, free. A libertarians views on free will tend to fall into one of two camps: the principle of alternate possibilities (AP) or the principle of ultimate authorship (UA). AP conceptualizes the idea that one would have acted differently. On the other hand, UA hypothesizes that when determining who should be held accountable for an actions consequences, it all depends on the individual (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). This brings about the problem of free will for libertarianism.

Discussion

The problem occurs if the focus is placed only on necessity and possibility. According to proponents of modal dualism, each modality can only take on one of these interpretations (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). Individuals implicit support for modal dualism limits their ability for free choice. This demonstrates that the AP or AU principles can be followed, but not both. In libertarianism, the tension between what is required and what is possible is expressed in the first person, which leads to two problems. For AP, a problem arises when one contends that, assuming his or her actions are required, there would be no alternative way to carry them out (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). Thus, it would appear he or she has very little control over the current circumstances, hence no AP. For UA, when the outcomes of my choices are ultimately determined by external factors, one would seem to have very little say in the matter. Hence, he or she would lack UA.

The article helps solve these two problems. In their discussion, Mumford and Anjum (2015) argue that agents may be libertarian APs and UAs while still adhering to the laws of causation. This position is plausible, as they use the paradigm of causal dispositionalism to show that distinguishing determinism from causality is possible at both the conceptual and ontological levels. However, this depends on an accurate understanding of the dispositional modality within causation. In such an instance, dispositional modality could provide a description of a phenomenon it generates but does not control. Agents would preserve their causal connection while displaying both AP and UA.

Conclusion

Overall, the free will conundrum may be solved if an understanding of causation and agency is expanded to include the dispositional modality. In fact, the causal dispositionalism paradigm would show that determinism and causality can be separated both conceptually and ontologically by having a clear understanding of the dispositional mode of causation.

Reference

Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. (2015). Freedom and control: On the modality of free will. American Philosophical Quarterly, 52(1), 1-11.