Free will is one of the main objects of discussion in philosophy. In its philosophical understanding, the free will is the ability of an individual as the primary author to cause volitional acts. Therefore, the owner of the free will is a person capable of making decisions based on the choice of many options for behavior models, regardless of external circumstances. In philosophy, for a long time, there has been a dispute about the existence of free will, its limits and nature. From there, the concept of determinism has arisen. According to Costello et al. (2019), “the most commonly used conceptualization of free will and determinism beliefs is a quadripartite model of Free Will, Fatalistic Determinism, Scientific Determinism, and Unpredictability” (p. 7). Determinism, in its essence, contains a doctrine of general conditionality of phenomena and events. Within the idea of free will, determinism proclaims its illusory nature, and the absence of personality as an author of conscious events.
However, it is important to note that determinism is rather viewed as partly a chain of causes hidden from the subject that generates his will as a consequence. Hoffmann and Michon (2017) claim that “If certain concrete psychological circumstances beyond the individual’s control were causing the choice, then the choice would once again be neither free nor imputable” (p. 21). If humanity really lives according to universal, global laws, then it can be concluded that every moment of the present, in which the world resides, completely follows from the previous one. Thus, one can discover the symmetry of the past and the future: the former is just as natural as the latter. With all the information about the world, it would be possible to accurately calculate what events will occur at a particular moment in time. This position is adhered to by rigid determinists; Sigmund Freud and Berries Frederick Skinner attributed to that.
The problem of determinism is that applying such a system to an individual would bring it to the point of absurdity. A complete determinism of a person is impossible: an externally motivated consciousness would become a pure appearance, and thus, consciousness would cease to be.
Behavior Prediction Possibility
The first point of view makes a bold statement, claiming that an individual’s life if determined strictly by the choices that this individual is not able to make. This opinion is based on the argument that other people can predict the behavior of the ones they know well, and operate on that behavior accordingly. This places the one who is being predicted one step behind the one who predicts, placing the first into an inferior position. As far as I can see, there is always the predicted one and the predicting one or ones who are able to mutually project the actions of each other every moment of the time. A person predicts and is predicted, so the process locks itself into an endless loop. I would like to argue with the initial statement – it erases an individuality of a person, making them nothing more but a set of already clarified actions. Moreover, it does not take into account the suddenness and abruptness of an, for example, schizophrenic – if one’s actions can be predicted every time, the mental illnesses simply would not exist.
On the other hand, the second statement seems much more reasonable to me. The author does not proclaims that anything has predetermined his life choices – rather, he asks a question to what amount had his own will influenced his life. I think there is quite a deep meaning to this, the implementation that life is neither a sequence of determined actions nor does it obey completely one’s will and intent. Each individual has the freedom of will but is also influenced by external forces. It is a balance; a never-ending loop of actions and consequences which determine one’s life through choices and the effects of these choices. In my opinion, this is a far more realistic approach – to know that there are external factors and internal decisions, working in unison.
The debate of free will and determinism has perplexed philosophers for many years now. The term ‘free will’ is used in Philosophy to denote a particular sort of capacity given to rational agents to select a course of action from various available alternatives (O’Connor para. 1).
Determinism is the philosophical principle claiming that all actions results from foregoing events or natural causes. Advocates of determinism suggest that the concept of free will is an illusion since agents are no more capable of controlling situations with their rational minds than any other irrational matter.
On their part, advocates of free will argue that a universe in which rational agents do not actually make their own rational choices as suggested by determinism has no morality (“Determinism” para. 2). This paper compares the philosophical thoughts of William James and Jean-Paul Sartre on the concept of free will.
Although James believed in free will purely on ethical grounds, he vehemently argued that neither science nor his own introspections supported the tenets of free will. In Pragmatism, James argued that in situations where one action appears as coherent as the other, there would be no standard whatsoever to judge one action as necessary than the other (Dubin 1).
For example, if an individual is given an alternative of looking to the left or right, there exists no scientific ground to argue that turning to the left is necessary or turning to the right is just a matter of chance.
An advocate of atheistic existentialism, Sartre argued that individuals must rely on their own imperfect will and moral insight since there is no God (O’Connor para 23). Although both philosophers believed in free will, Sartre’s argument seems more atheistically designed to back the existence of free will above anything else.
According to Sartre, man cannot escape from making choices, and must act within his will to make the necessary choices or risk being perceived in bad faith. His strong arguments in favor of free will leave no room whatsoever for determinism. In his argument against determinism, the philosopher argued that individuals had the capacity to ignore any action as real and pretend that another action is real.
For example, one can imagine a piece of bread to be a cake. Although imagination is a powerful thing, the problem arises since advocates of determinism will try to justify the imagination as “one more neurological mechanism, explainable by deterministic principles” (Boeree para. 19). To him, determinism curtails the exercise of free will.
While Sartre completely refuted the notion of determinism, James argued along the lines of hard and soft determinism. According to the philosopher, soft determinists believe that although all actions are determined by preceding events, there exists some form of freedom and moral responsibility for humans to make rational decisions. Hard determinists believe that all human behaviors and actions require them to rebuff the concept of moral responsibility in total since they are prearranged by forces outside their control (Frame para. 2).
James rejects the above positions using the argument of regret. The philosopher questions the rationale behind regretting some actions that happen if it is true that we live in a deterministic world. For instance, determinists must not regret that they failed exams since that action had been prearranged.
In this perspective, James rubbishes the statements and takes a more rational approach of indeterminism, which believes in multiple possible realities. All in all, the above arguments can go on and on without an end in sight. What is important to note at this point is that both philosophers rejected the notions of free will and determinism albeit in varying levels and for different reasons.
Throughout the course of the human history, people have always asked questions about the sense of life and the reasons that they have for certain actions. Some of them, especially at the initial stages of the development of the mankind, kept to the point of view that certain supernatural forces control and predetermine all actions of people and events in the world. Others, on the contrary, supported the point according to which people decide their actions and influence their lives only by themselves.
Both points of view had times of their rise and fall, but nevertheless, the uniform opinion about these issues has not yet been formed by philosophers (Schick and Vaughn, 3 – 5). Ancient Greek philosophers, medieval theologians and modern thinkers have dedicated their works to the issues of fatalism and free will, and the present essay is the reflection of the author’s opinion about these concepts. In this paper, I am going to consider the phenomena of fatalism and free will and support my argument by reputable scholarly sources information.
Basic Definitions
To begin with, it is necessary to find out the differences between the terms that people use, sometimes incorrectly, to name as they thing the same phenomenon but it is not so in reality. First of all, fatalism is the belief that Divine or other supernatural power determines all human actions and events beforehand. This is rather a theological concept. However, determinism, which is sometimes confused with fatalism, is the belief in existence of causes for all events and actions of people.
They are not necessarily divine, but rather temporal and consequential. Moreover, the concept of free will is the belief that people use their rational thinking to motivate their actions and only they can direct their deeds. At the same time, the concept of indeterminism is rather chaotic in its essence because it presupposes no actual cause – result relations of people’s past, present and future actions, and explains them as biochemical reactions that took place within a human organism. Thus, the matter to be considered in this paper is the interrelation of free will and fatalism in basic spheres of human life (Brown, 285 – 295).
Fatalism
Numerous scholars considered the concept of fatalism in their works. For example, Aristotle found fatalism to be a relative category because it is proved only if the event that was thought of as predetermined really happens in the future. On the contrary, if that event does not happen, fatalism is denied in this case. The ideas of Boethius were rather different but their essence is close to Aristotle’s ideas – fatalism can not be proven.
According to Boethius, God exists outside the temporal relations and can not determine anything for past or future. God sees everything at once and presents people the freedom to choose between the good predetermined by him or the evil. Drawing from this, it is evident that going of a soul to Hell or Heaven is predetermined not by actions of a person but by God’s decision made before the birth of the person (McCann, 582 – 598). Thus, despite of the certain criticism of fatalism, it is acknowledged as the concept that dominates the existence of the mankind.
In my opinion, fatalism is not to be absolutely recognized. It goes without saying that certain events, like death in the old age, natural aging of a person, etc. are predetermined, but the time when they happen can be influenced by the decisions made by people on themselves. For instance, healthy way of life can postpone physical aging by keeping people fit and sound. It is evident that people’s decisions are necessary for taking these steps and fatalism is not the means to explain them. However, if, for instance, a road accident happens to a person who is a qualified driver there can often be no other explanation than fate.
Fatalism can also be observed in the facts that no one chooses the family he or she is born in. There is no free will or right of free choice and this fact can be considered the predetermined destination of a certain person (Prtill, 185 – 192). Nevertheless, the activities of people in mature age can not be completely explained by determination, fate or divine will. People can only post factum try to explain somebody’s achievements as fate. In reality, the success one achieves in life and the decisions one makes throughout his or her life are predetermined by free will of this person.
Free Will
The concept of the so called free will has also been studied by numerous scholars in the history of philosophy. This concept was mainly considered by either atheist or anthropocentric philosophers who examined all events that happen to a person as the result of the choices and decision he or she makes. Machiavelli, Nietzsche and many others stated the priority of personal interests above all other motivations and defended the right for free choice of purposes and means o their achieving.
The central figure of their theories was a person who does not pay attention to all public norms and standards and goes directly to his or her outlined aim. Divine or supernatural forces were denied completely, and the world was characterized as the struggle in which only the strongest and the most decisive people will survive (Talbott, 65 – 88).
On the contrary, the criticism of free will concept also exists among the ideas of philosophers. For instance, Schopenhauer considers free will to be an invention of the human mind as in reality no human being is able to decide anything in his or her life. Everything is predetermined by the divine providence and people only have illusions of deciding something, because even their future decisions are predetermined. Another important point of the free will concept is the environmental factors that limit the freedom of decisions of people.
Even if the decision is made based on the free will of a person, certain outside factors can influence this decision because a human being can not foresee the actions of others that could influence his freedom. For example, if a person based on his or her free will decides to apply for a University position but the tutorial fee there is too high for his or her family, the decision to enter another University with lower fees becomes not free but limited and conditioned by outside factors.
These factors can be called fate, but can be considered as objective reality. In some other examples, pure free will can be observed, for instance, when people decide the circle of friends and people they want or do not want to communicate with. These steps are based on the free will and influence the further lives of people. Thus, if a certain event happens to a person because of the decision he or she made in past, not fate but the free will improperly used should be the explanation for it (Schick and Vaughn, 7 – 10).
Conclusion
To conclude the present essay, it is necessary to state that relation of fatalism and free will are quite vague in their essence. Thus, fatalism is the belief in divine force predetermining of life and actions, while free will is trust in the abilities of a person to decide everything in his or her life. Keeping to one viewpoint means denying another one, but the truth lies in the middle of the two concepts. Life in the society does not provide for absolute freedom of decisions and actions, and the outside influences on the decisions made by free will can be considered as fatalism preventing a person from realization of his or her decisions. But the absolute support of either of the concepts is not quite adequate.
Works Cited
Brown, Robert F. “Divine Omniscience, Immutability, Aseity and Human Free Will,” Religious Studies 27, 3 (2001): 285-295.
McCann, Hugh. “Divine Sovereignty and the Freedom of the Will,” Faith and Philosophy 12, (2005): 582-598.
Purtill, Richard. “Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy 5:2 (2001): 185-192.
Schick, Theodore and Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Philosophy An Intoduction Through Thought Experiments, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill College, 2005.
Talbott, Thomas. “Theological Fatalism and Modal Confusion,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 33 (2003): 65-88.
The dilemma of free will has baffled philosophers and other literary figures for centuries. To date, some of the greatest minds are still struggling to shed light on the doctrine of free will and other opposing doctrines such as determinism and causation. It is indeed true that concerns about free will make us ask more questions than we can ever possibly answer, including questioning our very existence and the nature of the physical world that we live in.
Issues about free will arouses more concerns about our human psychology, societal controls, right and wrong, ethical accountability, crime and punishment, and much more (Kane 1). This notwithstanding, the trend all over the world is toward populations that are more free since individuals desire to have the capability and occasion to gratify their very own desires. It is the purpose of this paper to critically analyze the concept of free will, with a focus on David Hume’s Compatibilist view about the concept.
According to O’Connor, “…free will is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action among various alternatives” (para. 1). When taken in context, this definition presumes that rational agents are naturally endowed with freedom that entails the capacity to choose one action from other genuinely open actions or possibilities.
Further, this definition presumes that although rational agents may select a particular option on a particular event, they could have selected otherwise. From a moral responsibility perspective, free will can be defined as the distinctive capability of individuals to exercise control over their actions and behaviors in the fullest manner needed for moral responsibility (McKenna para. 2).
Consequently, rational agents have the capacity and opportunity to exercise control over their judgments, actions and choices. However, many philosophers have refuted this juxtaposition of explanations about free will, making the doctrine one of the most spectacularly debated areas of modern philosophical research.
Understanding Key Concepts Related to Free Will
Philosophers and other modern theorists have taken different positions on the issue of free will depending on their understanding of a number of key aspects related to the doctrine. It is almost impossible to discuss the concept without first understanding philosophical positions and doctrines related to the dilemma of free will such as libertarianism, determinism, moral responsibility and compatibilism.
According to Williams, libertarians are of the view that free will is rationally incompatible with the concept of determinism, and that a deterministic world may be rationally impossible or false (37). According to libertarians, some human actions and behavior, predominantly religious and ethical actions, are stringently uncaused (Frame para. 2).Consequently, libertarians argue that free will is rationally possible
Determinism is the view that every aspect of human life, including our way of thinking, behavior and decision making process, is casually determined by external forces of nature that are outside our control. Although there are many variations and philosophical positions on the doctrine of determinism, the general consensus is that the universe is completely controlled by causal laws, leaving no room for human free will since we only have one possible state to utilize at any point in time (Williams 57).
Determinism directly opposes the doctrine of free will through its metaphysical argument that an uncaused event is logically impossible. Consequently, determinists holds the view that all human actions, including cognition, behavior, temperament, decisions, are caused exclusively by antecedent events, and not by the application of free will (McKenna para. 4).
A morally responsible agent must not only be able to do what is morally right, but she must also be “accountable for her morally significant conduct” (McKenna para. 3).
A rational agent becomes the target of particular kind of responses such as praise and blame after the agent acts or fails to act on a morally significant action. As such, it is imperative to note that the doctrine of free will is understood as an essential precondition of ethical responsibility since it would be utterly illogical to argue that a rational agent merits praise and reward for her actions or behavior if it turns out that such an agent was not in control of the action at any point in time.
It therefore follows that the concept of free will is central to moral responsibility since it is rationally impossible to prove the moral worthiness of any action if a rational agent, for whatever reason, cannot exercise her freedom of will (Frame para. 3).
For example, if a rational agent is strapped to a remote controlled equipment which, using the agents arms, commits a crime, the agent is not in any way responsible for committing the said crime since she could not have acted otherwise. This view is shared by most libertarians (Frame para. 3). Consequently, there exists an intimate correlation between free will and the notion of moral responsibility.
Lastly, compatibilism is the view that both free will and determinism are logically compatible (McKenna para. 1). A compatibilist defines the exercise of free will in a manner that does not hinder the presupposition of other prior causes. For example, a rational agent can describe a free act as one that entails no coercion or compulsion by another agent.
A compatibilist will therefore argue that since the physical world and the causal laws of nature are not rational agents, actions and events which are triggered by such laws and the physical universe would undoubtedly be free acts (Kane 32). Consequently, it would be rationally wrong to make conclusions that universal determinism translates to the fact that rational agents are never free. Below, a compatibilist’s view on free will is espoused.
David Hume’s View on Free Will
David Hume was an empiricist philosopher who revolutionalized the concepts of causality, induction, and the difference between fact and value (Hume 9). He was Scottish by origin, and was also interested in History and Economics. The philosopher is widely documented as having provided the most dominant account of compatibilist position in the deliberation about free will. Hume was of the view that free will and moral responsibility can coexist with causal determinism (Russell para. 1).
According to the philosopher, free will must not be understood in the context of an absolute capability to choose different actions under precisely the same inner and outer conditions. Rather, free will should be viewed as a hypothetical capability to select one action from a number of possible actions due to psychological disposition that may arise from some different beliefs or desires (Hume 39).
The philosopher was categorical that all free acts can never be without a cause. In other words, David Hume maintained that all exercises of free will can never be self-caused (Hume 57). In his view, the exercise of free will is caused by the choices that we make as determined by our actions, characters, value systems and beliefs.
To Hume, decisions made by rational agents are always controlled by a causal chain of events and conditions. For instance, a rational agent may make a decision to visit a hotel when she feels hungry; but that decision must be determined by other conditions and events that existed before the agent made her decision to visit the hotel.
There is little doubt that people as rational agents have a discernment of choice in their daily lives. As a matter of fact, the trend in contemporary societies around the world is towards freedom. Individuals are yearning to be given more space to exercise their freedom.
Indeed, we vehemently believe that were not mere marionettes of causal laws or the natural laws of the universe since we make our own choices and do whatever pleases our inner souls and desires. But looking at Hume’s arguments, one is forced to rethink about how free we really are. The fact that humans are free to exercise their will is undeniable. But as Hume suggests, freedom is, and must be determined by other conditions. In that respect, the compatibilist view on free will is much more favorable.
According to David Hume, the disagreement about the compatibility of free will and determinism is fueled by ambiguous terminology. Accordingly, he tried to solve the problem by coming up with the concepts of ‘necessity’ and ‘liberty’. In brief, the philosopher defined necessity as the uniformity that can be observed in the normal operations of the laws of nature, where comparable objects are continually conjoined collectively (Hume 37).
Liberty was defined as the power of the rational agent to act or not to act according to his or her own determinations of the will. Consequently, Hume postulated that not only are the two definitions compatible, but liberty, which is taken to mean free will, requires necessity. To Hume, such an arrangement was necessary to align the actions of rational agents to their motives, inclinations and situations.
Hume’s compatibilist view about free will is undoubtedly the most rational view that can be used to explain human action and behavior in contemporary times. It is indeed true that the doctrine of free will can never exist without influence, compulsion and pressure from the laws of the universe or the environment (Williams 87). Hopefully, there exist more or less logical motives why rational agents may choose action A over B. For example, government laws or our very own upbringing may warrant us to choose A over B.
That not withstanding, our very own knowledge and understanding that action B would bring undesired ramifications may warrant us to choose action A. It therefore follows that the exercise of free will must be determined by other conditions. However, this argument does not suggest that the concept of free will is an illusion. On the contrary, rational agents have the capacity to make choices, and there exist situations in life where they can genuinely choose between action A or B.
Conclusion
The doctrine of free will has been debated by philosophers and other theorists for over two millennia now (O’Connor para. 1). As such, its contents can never be fully exhausted. But from the essay, the key concepts relating to free will, namely libertarianism, determinism, moral responsibility and compatibilism, have be discussed.
In equal measure, David Hume’s compatibilist’s approach about free will has formed the main reference point of this discussion. The opinions given strongly favor Hume’s compatibilist’s view on free will. The philosopher strongly argued that free will and moral responsibility can coexist with causal determinism (Russell para. 1).
He was categorical that all free acts can never be without a cause. While rational agents like to believe that they make their own choices without compulsion or coercion, it is indeed difficult to validate this belief logically for theological, philosophical and scientific reasons. However, it should not escape mention that the notion of free will is not a delusion.
As already mentioned, there exist situations where rational agents can genuinely choose their own actions without external interference. Otherwise, our criminal justice systems may lack the legal and moral basis of punishing murderers, rapists and other law breakers since moral responsibility is only significant if there is possibility for choice.
Free will involves the liberty to act freely without any influence or interests from external pressure, which may involve divine intervention, social, or natural restraint. An individual is considered to be acting freely if they have the liberty to choose what they want from a variety of options. According to Thomas Hobbes, individuals who have free will usually act on their own will without influence from emotions, laws, or actions of others (Gino, 2020). Hobbes argued that God has a free will because his free will is not affected by anything that happens. This kind of free will cannot be determined by anything outside it. He believed that freedom could not be impended and an individual’s free will existed independent of all other influences. On the other hand, George Berkeley believed that free will was controlled by God in his eternity and it was not ours (Gino, 2020). George was an idealist who believed that physical matter does not exist because they are just perceptions formed in people’s minds, which are caused by God. George believed that free will could not be determined by any casual means.
When comparing the ideas of the two psychologists, Thomas Hobbes’ perspective is a better reflection of modern psychologists’ perception of free will. Modern psychologists suggest that determinism disrupts freedom as well as self-respect while diminishing human behavior. The deterministic approach proposes that behavior and actions have a cause and can be predicted (Gino, 2020). Our internal and external environment determines our behavior hence free will, which suggests despite there being options to choose from, there are influential things that determine our decisions and actions. Hobbes did not recognize the role of social institutions and laws in free will, which differentiates his viewpoint from modern perspectives on free will.
Reference
Gino, S. (2020). Scottish Common Sense, association of ideas and free will. Intellectual History Review, 30(1), 109-127.
People would like to believe that their actions are a result of willingly made choices, but it may not be so. A human being exists in the realms of biology and physics, where the power of determinism is strong, and it is difficult to claim independence from them. On the other hand, humans have the ability to make predictions about themselves and others, some of which will come true, undermining the idea of free will. This paper will argue that the existence of determinism and the prediction argument suggests that people, in fact, do not have free will.
Determinism implies that everything in the universe is predetermined, meaning it has a clear course for how future events will unfold. For instance, genes can predetermine one’s behavior, which is true for humans, although the environment also plays a role, adding to the deterministic approach (Willmott 24, 25). Additionally, physics also operates on determinism, which is evident by performing the same experiment and achieving a single result, although particles have a certain degree of uncertainty regarding their position or components (Scardigli et al. 37). It could apply to humans, too, as they might have some freedom to their actions and clothes, but their overall life is predetermined. Furthermore, as in science, people can make predictions about certain events involving themselves and others. Not one all of them tend to come true, but those that consider the circumstances, the personality, and the reoccurrence will probably do. In the end, those factors have a deterministic value, not unlike everything else in the universe, further depriving humans of free will.
Thus, determinism is inherent to the universe, which is eventually predicted to die. Humans belong to the complex world and are also subject to predetermined fate, although they may consider certain randomness to their actions as evidence for free will. Determinism has degrees, and some can probably reconcile the fact that it can coexist with free will. However, even those moments of clarity are probably an integral part of a human’s deterministic nature, similarly to particles.
Works Cited
Scardigli, Fabio, et al. Determinism and Free Will: New Insights from Physics, Philosophy, and Theology. Springer, 2019.
Willmott, Chris. Biological Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility: Insights from Genetics and Neuroscience. Springer, 2016.
Genuine freewill according to Susan Wolf consists of actions that are in accordance with reason. It should be done with full knowledge of what is true and good. She argues that we are free when we do right things and not free when we do wrong things since in doing bad things, we will only be slaves to our passions and desires. In the Asymmetry of the Reason view, Wolf argues that responsibility depends on the aptitude to operate and act in agreement with the true and good. If an individual is psychologically resolute on doing the right things for the right reasons, then he/she is attuned to having the obligatory ability. In most cases, if one is considered to have the attainment of aspects that are not on the right perspective, in this case, he or she can be termed as one who is in denial of what his or her abilities entail.
This can be attributed that whatever one does and there is no logic in it therefore the other alternative will definitely not be right. The implication is that he/she lacks the ability to act in harmony with the true and good. In many cases, there are only these two cases but an individual has only one chance of having the best alternative. Wolf clearly portrays how they entail the urge in the attainment of liberty since this can be termed as the only alternative. She attributes the concept that all individuals are away from bondage and are able to clearly compare relevant aspects to their values but not on the desired aspects. In this case therefore we are free only if our actions are guided by societal values and norms and not our personal desires
She argues that human beings show evidence of moral behavior in their reactive attitudes towards the behavior of other people when they put across blame or praise for their actions. This also happens when they feel guilty and proud because of their own actions. For Wolf, this is enough substantiation to ascertain the presence of moral responsibility in human beings. In the real focus, for a person to be reputed as one who is aware of his or her immediate environment, the aspect of judgment and factors that focus on legitimacy ought to be well pondered so as to bring the true refl; section of the person.
The stance includes bitterness and appreciation, disgrace and arrogance, hatred and admiration. The variety of rulings includes the rulings which attribute a person as being creditable of hatred that when clearly ponder upon the person in question need s to be proud of the situation or hate it. The practices that are entailed in this aspect include those that lean, especially on the negativity of what has been performed.
Wolf says that the most important prerequisite for responsibility is decisive control. In toting up to the requirement that an individual has control over his/her behavior and the obligation that he/she has control along the correct lines, there is a necessity that his/her control be ultimate. The control has to be based o the overall ideas of the individual and it has to be intrinsic such that all the necessary changes or responsibilities can be adhered to. His/her will must be determined by him/her self, and him/her self must not, in turn, be swayed by anything external to itself.
Reference
Susan, Wolf what is genuine free will? Web.
Susan, Wolf (1994) the elusive ideal (3) 25-60. Web.
In the first episode of the second season of the television series “House, M.D.,” the viewer meets a black man, Clarence, sentenced to death. One of the murders he committed was taking his girlfriend’s life, who “stepped out,” cheating on him. The essay analyzes to which extent his action can be regarded as free from the theoretical standpoints of three approaches: Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism.
According to Determinism, all actions are conditioned in advance, and there is no free will. Ultimately, when this argument is taken to the absolute, the criterion of responsibility loses its meaning. Thus, Clarence’s killing of his girlfriend is an unfree action because, according to Campbell, Determinism states that “physical events in which such decisions manifest themselves are determined by irrevocable law.” One could argue that Clarence’s actions had been predetermined by his socio-cultural environment or a specific psychological structure that influenced his decisions.
According to Compatibilism, free will is compatible with Determinism. According to Compatibilism philosophy, Clarence’s murdering his girlfriend is a free action, because, as Hume states, “the conjunction between motives and voluntary actions is as regular and uniform as that between cause and effect in any part of nature.” From this argument, one could suggest that Clarence’s action can be regarded as free will manifested in spontaneity.
Libertarianism assumes that a person has complete free will and that every manifestation of his activity is a conscious and controlled choice outside of causality. According to the Libertarian view, Clarence’s killing of his girlfriend is a free act because, as Nozik states, “one decides on which reasons to act on; or one may decide to act on none of them but to seek instead a new alternative.” From this position, Clarence’s action could be interpreted through his deliberate free choice of killing his girlfriend following his moral principles and desired future for both of them.
Despite people’s intention to simplify their lives, many philosophical ideas remain ambiguous and provoke multiple debates. Free will for people is one of such paradoxical philosophical questions, and controversial arguments can be given to developing this discussion. On the one hand, people consider themselves free beings as they are able to make independent decisions, choose between options, and live in accordance with their moral and ethical rights. On the other hand, such concepts as responsibility, obligation, and the power of God should not be ignored due to their specific impact on human life. The main question of this research is “Do people actually have free will?”. There are many approaches, and it is normal to support or argue them. The statements introduced by ancient, Enlightenment, and modern philosophers will be taken into account to promote a better understanding of the chosen subject. In view of existing religious thoughts, obligations, standards, personal preferences, and confidence, free will is hardly a reality and never a fraud because people need something to believe in and strive for in their lives.
Background Information
At the initial stage of this research, defining the term “free will” seems an easy task. People think that they face this concept regularly in their lives when they choose what to eat, how to dress up, or where to continue their education. Regarding such an attitude toward free will, it may be explained as an ability to choose between available options and determine the development of events. However, as soon as free will is treated as one of the philosophical problems, more analysis is required. According to Ekstrom, the complexity of this definition is “not worn on its face” because it is not one problem but many (1-2). People do not recognize various external and internal factors that may affect their decisions. The point is that the necessity to find an explanation of free will results in the initiation of a serious moral scandal where some thinkers define it as an illusion, while others accept it as a core of creativity (Doyle 17). Being obsessed with their achievements and desire to create fair living conditions, people continue puzzling out this term from multiple perspectives.
The history of free will discussion can be traced back to the fourth century BCE in the works of Plato and Aristotle. For example, Plato believed that “a great peace comes when age sets us free from passions” (5). He underlined the worth of justice for the human soul and the possibility to get rid of all temptations with time. Still, justice is based on reason, and the reason is usually defined by moral standards and obligations to pursue good. Plato was the one who introduced free will and deprived people of its accomplishment. Aristotle was the next who contributed to this evaluation by adding the importance of choices. He explained that “the man acts voluntarily” as it is “in his power to do or not to do” (34). At the same time, Aristotle left some mental pabulum that “in the abstract,” some actions are “involuntary” due to the presence of “irrational” elements in the human soul (Aristotle19, 34). Being of the brightest minds, these two philosophers were not ready to give a clear answer to the question if people could possess free will.
People and Their Moral and Legal Obligations
Every philosopher, as well as every individual, is free to develop unique interpretations of free will importance in their lives. One of the reasons to justify the “NO” answer to the offered paradoxical question is the presence of legal and moral obligations for all moral agents, namely people. One may use the idea of Ekstrom that “the question of free will is not a question of what persons are socially, politically, or legally allowed to do” to prove the insignificance of obligations (2). However, individuals, as a meaningful part of a moral community, cannot neglect their responsibilities. When a person is born, parents are responsible for their children’s well-being. With age, children have to go to school and contribute to their self-development. As soon as they are grownups, they need to find jobs and follow the already established social norms.
There are specific legal and judicial systems that show how all human actions are predetermined. All people must take responsibility for their crimes, disorder, and misbehavior (Doyle 17). As a result, many philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and Peter Strawson, decided to balance the concepts of free will and moral responsibility. The former concluded that people are free if they behave according to the moral law, as they are the creators of their ends (qtd. in Ekstrom 10). The latter rejected free will in any form because a person can hardly give up his/her natural attitudes and feelings of blame/praise, guilt/pride, crime/punishment, resentment, and forgiveness (qtd. in Doyle 250). When it seems that a person can choose from several options, one should remember the fact that all those alternatives have already been predetermined by someone. For example, personal feelings (that are considered free) depend on many outside factors like family background, education, and nationality. As it turns out, it is hard and usually impossible to break the circle of determinism, and many other factors affect human life, including religion.
God’s Role in Human Life
The paradox of the question about free will for humans is also related to the role of God and the impossibility of great philosophers to provide a clear answer. There is a divine perspective in terms of which God is conceived as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and sovereign (Ekstrom 15). God is the creator of humans, and He gave people free will so they could choose between good and wrong (30). From this statement, it may be concluded that people do have free will from their birth. There are enough opportunities for people to escape pain, sin, and damage as they have been given free choice of will (Augustine 5). Every person is free to decide, choose, and understand what should be done, and free will is something humans can actually possess. Divine knowledge is critical, but it may be interpreted differently. Thomas Aquinas stated that God had powers, but He was also ruled by laws; Duns Scotus defined God’s actions as free from external impact (qtd. in Doyle 83). Thus, it is always necessary to add the phrase “as per God’s will” to any of these arguments.
Along with free will being God’s gift, people get access to a variety of options, conditions, and resources. However, no one who believes in the power of God can deny the fact that He “is in fact in control of everything” (Ekstrom 16). Even in his discussions about free will and a variety of options, Augustine admitted that God “will be at hand and make us understand what we have come to believe” (5). A number of questions about the actual possibility of people choosing freely appear. For example, people are free to develop their skills and qualities as per their interests. Still, they cannot influence what has already been put in them by God, a sequence of events, or genetics. It is possible to choose what to eat, where to live, or how to speak. Nevertheless, the question remains the same – if all these options are a matter of free will because someone else has already created all of them.
Poorly Defined Human Choices
Finally, the question of free will cannot be closed until people understand their needs and choices properly. Alternative possibilities exist regardless of human beliefs or religious backgrounds (Doyle 117). Fischer, a modern professor of philosophy, provides an interesting definition of these opportunities as “flickers of freedom” (qtd. in Doyle 117). Thus, they are not constant and may be changed with time. To learn better human choices, another modern philosopher, Dennett, offers to separate “random possibilities from determined choices” and underline the necessity to protect free will as a vital part of human existence (qtd. in Doyle 118). There is no way a person can avoid determinism because it is the way of how society lives and develops. Still, as well as people trying to determine their choices and relationships, do not want to be determined by outside factors. In this case, Dennett introduces a solution to see what free will should look like – not from a physical point of view but from a biological one (qtd. in Doyle 171). Free will is not an option but a capacity to see the future and make choices that meet needs.
People’s obsession with freedom and will motivates and suppresses at the same time. It was correctly mentioned by Augustine that “nothing makes the mind a devotee of desire but its own will and free choice” (19). Aristotle said that “we feel anger and fear without choice” (26). And Goetz proved that choices are never random but made for specific reasons and purposes (qtd. in Ekstrom 90). The more thoughts about free will are developed, the more obstacles and challenges occur in the person’s way. The truth is that free will may be developed and introduced as a philosophical concept with a number of interpretations and outcomes. However, regarding the presence of multiple outside factors (religion and law), the inconstancy of human nature, and the conflict of personal strengths and weaknesses, people can hardly possess free will per se.
Conclusion
The analysis of complex philosophical questions is always interesting and challenging because there are no right or wrong answers but opportunities to enhance an understanding of human life. Free will remains to be one of the most intriguing concepts in philosophy during the last four thousand years. People do everything possible to protect their freedoms and improve their living conditions. They want to prove free will possibility and continue burying themselves with new approaches and ideas. As soon as a person has this question in mind, it is high time to remember what makes him/her think about it, in other words, an outside factor. Free will is illusory until people are bound by their responsibilities, God’s power, and choice recognition – the elements that fulfill this life.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by William David Ross, Batoche Books, 1999.
Augustine. On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings. Edited by Peter King. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Doyle, Bob. Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy. I-Phi Press, 2016.
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. Routledge, 2018.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Francis Macdonald Cornford, Oxford University Press, 1970.
The enduring debate about whether choice or determinism influences human behavior and actions reveals interesting perspectives. Freedom and determination are opposing forces that represent a situation where people can decide their demeanor or have no control over them, respectively. Contention surrounds the concepts of free choice and causality to understand whether man creates his destiny or follows a definite path set for him. The perplexing issues include how to account for or change actions and fate depending on whether they come from within or from external stimuli (Willoughby et al. 137). An objective and meticulous examination of the freedom and responsibility spectrum that highlights the difference between choice and causation explains whether human actions are free or predetermined.
Self-discretion refers to the inherent capacity for someone to choose his actions or behavior without any form of restriction. The keyword that drives choice is self-determination, such as deciding to commit a crime or avoid it, fully aware of the repercussions. Interestingly, this does not imply that behavior occurs randomly but that individuals are free from the causal influences derived from experiences (Willoughby et al. 143). The humanistic approach delineates self-discretion as the agency to exercise personal preferences regarding the consequences of the exhibited behavior. Famed humanists psychologists, such as Maslow argue that freedom is possible and necessary for man to become fully functional. Undeniably, self-actualization is a unique human need and motivation that illustrates man’s uniqueness from other species.
Determinism and the determinist perspective posit that every demeanor or action is predictable by virtue of having a cause. Essentially, the determinist school of thought rejects freedom as an illusion and cites internal and external forces beyond human control as the source of behavior. Consequently, determinists observe human action and behavior from two angles, namely external and internal determinism (Willoughby et al. 149). External determinists observe behavior as a human trait resulting from external influencers, such as the media, peers, school, and parents. Social learning theory and behaviorism acknowledge the value of external influence (Willoughby et al. 151) as illustrated by Bandura who linked children’s aggressive behavior with what they observed and imitated from their parents.
Internal determinism explains how forces from within a person shape behavior and actions. Sociobiology acknowledges the value of genetic inheritance that represents forces derived from inside a family to govern the behavior of its members. The justification of the innate forces is evident when a child shows the natural need to attach to one figure, such as a parent or a caregiver (Willoughby et al. 155). Undeniably, personal characteristics, such as neuroticism and extraversion cause behavior that stem from hormonal and neurological processes of the body.
Determinism is evident through different levels to show its causal effects on human behavior. Hard determinism that is championed by behaviorists emphasizes the fact that every action and behavior has a cause and choice is a fantasy. According to Skinner, people who commit crimes have no choice but act in response to their personal history and environmental circumstances that make violating the law inevitable and natural (Willoughby et al. 161). Conversely, soft determinism acknowledges that people have choices, albeit constrained by external and internal forces. This element of free will is evident by the argument that being poor does not motivate people to steal but increases their likelihood to pursue the option due to desperation.
Conclusively, free choice and causation are important forces that can explain human actions and behavior as shown in the freedom and responsibility spectrum. Each of the perspectives explaining people’s demeanor offers a valid argument that reveals their credibility. Researchers and policymakers can gain much insight to implement strategies, policies, and laws that embrace the value of choice and causality in explaining human actions and behavior.
Works Cited
Willoughby, Emily A., et al. “Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments about the Heritability of Behavior.” Behavior Genetics, vol. 49, no. 2, 2019, pp. 136-153.