Free Will Essay

Free Will Essay
Many people in the western world hold very dear the idea of independence, that they can think freely, choose freely, and express themselves freely.
This all is connected to the idea of free will that many believe is what makes us human. Many people cannot, however, define free will. There is
always the feeling that one can do whatever he/she wants. That is probably why this idea is such a pleasing concept. There is just one serious flaw
in the free will concept. People cannot determine everything; there are some things, even before one is born, that determines who he will be in the
future. Since people do not choose their parents, or the nationality of their family this creates a serious flaw in the free will concept. Now if people were
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On another note, the Qur'an is often wrongly interpreted as being based on determinism. This is false; if a life of a Muslim was determined for
him/her at birth there would be no point in him/her trying to find out the nature of his sin, Allah would not have had to send prophets to teach his
people the way, because all their actions would be already determined by them (Gorjian 2010). This suggests that, as far a religion goes people are
free to do as they feel is right. This however does not justify the fact that governments take away this freedom from their citizens. Governments
taking away freedom from their subjects can be traced back in history, and one the greatest examples for this would be the war of ideologies
known as World War II. Political systems are based on ideas like fascism which helped Germans in their economic crisis, communism overthrew the
Tzars in Russia which gave the proletariat all the influence they needed, while liberalism promised freedom. This all seems perfect, however, as it is
all well known, there were flaws in each of those systems. Nazis under Hitler were only nice to a great portion of Germans as they were trying to
create the master race. All others: Slavs, Roma, Jews were hated and discriminated against. In occupied Poland Nazis closed schools, denied access to
education, confiscated automobiles, (Cosby 2010) houses, land and riches.
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Philosophy Of Free Will
In the blink of an eye, 300 thousand people could die. In the blink of an eye, you could change the outcome of any event just because you want to. It
takes, literally, nanoseconds to completely change the outcome of any given instance. These choices are so imperative to our lifestyles that overlooking
them would be bringing some injustice to the matter. On a somber note, take into account the events that transpired on September 11th, 2001. I, like
much of the general population, was just a kid when it happened. But even today, that one particular event rattles my mind because I just couldn't
understand it, I don't think anyone does. Why did this have to happen? Why to them, why to us, why then, why like that? Although humans wish that
their... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Facts state that we are biological creatures made up of molecules that adhere to the laws of physics. If science is as reputable as we make it out to be,
then the regularity of those laws determines how every single molecule in the known universe acts. As a population, humans are merely constructs of
one vital organ, the brain– a supercomputer capable of naming itself. And this goes without saying that the human brain (the organ designated as doing
the choosing in our everyday decisions) is made up of these exact same molecules. Everything humans think, do, or say, must come down to the
behavior of these molecules according to the laws they follows. The concept of free will is based upon an illusion that people can choose their actions;
however that is not the case. Due to the fact that the brain is composed of chemicals, neurons, and molecules that are subject to the law of physics, an
individual's actions become the result of the chemical and molecular changes within the brain. These changes are based on the biological makeup of the
individual and the environmental factors the individual

The Problem Of Free Will
Human's free will is one of the most debatable problems in the field of both philosophy and ethics. Does everybody has a control on his choices and
actions or it all was determined in advance. According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume on the problem of free will: "the most contentious
question of metaphysics, the most contentious science" [1]. Free will is defined as the ability of humans to take decisions that are not determined by
divine intervention or caused by a preceding cause [2]. It is agreed by philosophers who dealt with the problem of free will that a human is not free
to make a choice unless he could have done otherwise, in what is known as the principle of alternative possibilities [3]. The free will problem arose
in the Greek mythology in many instances such as the tragedy of Oedipus in its different versions as Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. Opinions are divided
into three main standpoints regarding the problem of free will.

Camus Free Will
Do We Have the Choice to Think About Free Will? For thousands of years, humans have dwelled on the potential for free will; if we can choose our
own path in life or if our futures are predestined by some entity. Thus far, there has been no definitive proof to support either argument, so we remain in
the dark to ponder this query. The existentialist philosophy is that "existence precedes essence, that the significant fact is that we and things in general
exist, but that these things have no meaning for us except that we can create meaning through acting upon them" (Harmond and Holman, p.203). Albert
Camus's "The Guest" is a prime example of existential dilemma, displaying tones of confusion and consequence resulting from the free will
predicament. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the crossroads, Daru can either utilize his free will to release the man towards the nomads, as his morality is calling for him to do, or relinquish
his ability to choose his path in life by following the orders given to him by Balducci. After presenting the prisoner with the package of food and
some money he prepared, while the man had waited outside the schoolhouse, effectively supplying him for either path he decides upon, Daru leaves
the prisoner to make up his own mind. Daru removes himself from the decision, allowing the Fates to dictate from his decision not to act. Turning
back, he sees the prisoner chose to walk to the police headquarters in Tinguit and "Daru felt something rise in his throat. But he swore with
impatience", disappointed the man chose to remain a prisoner even when confronted with a third and final opportunity to escape (Camus). At the end,
Daru sees a threat written on the blackboard back in the schoolhouse, that he will suffer the consequences of the man going to prison, regardless of
having offered a chance at

Free Will Vs. Augustine's Free Choice Of The Will
In Book Two of Augustine's Free Choice of the Will, Augustine argues with Evodius about what it means to understand. The book started by both
Augustine and Evodius talking about the free choice of will and where comes from. Evodius said, without free will we could never sin, so why would
God give it to us? Therefore, questioning if god knew man would do evil and abuse free will. But, Augustine then explained that "without wrong, there
is no right." If we did not know what the wrong thing to do was, we would never know what would be the right choice therefore the fear of
punishment for doing what was wrong is what makes us do good becoming a morality question.
We as humans have the choice of free will and we do not come to know evil. Evil

In Defense of Free Will
In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the
ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually
truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have
no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self–control. I
will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will. 1.
The Argument Against Free Will The argument against free will states that; what you do is always determined by what you have the strongest
desire to do, but you have no control over what you desire. If what you do is always determined by something that you have no control over then
you can never actually act freely. It follows from what has been said that one does not have free will. The first statement seems to not make a whole
lot of sense right off the bat. You would think that if someone wants to do something but does not do it then they are not choosing their greatest desire.
How does your brain tell you what you want? Do you have any control over what your brain says you want? According to what this argument states we
do not

Free Will Debate
The Debate over Free will
Free will is the capacity to select between different possible ways of action. We are given free will to make our own choice. This free will is a gift, so
we can decide the way to live. Still, we should keep in mind that the free will is a responsibility and a gift. The choices people make are a part of the
free will and both are compatible. Thus, the idea of free has been argued by numerous philosophers. Therefore, my explanation will base on free will
and the consequences of the choice.
When you are given the ability to decide on your own, it is free will. For instance, a person was given a personal choice to make and he said to his
friend; "Do not make me think; tell me what to do." This person did not want to utilize free will and decide on his own, he wanted to be told.
Likewise, people have a diverse view about free will. Despite their different perspective, free will is a gift. It comes to the point each person ends up to
have different variety of free will. In addition to this gift of free will, you are not preprogrammed to please anyone as a robot. Therefore, we can have
visualized it this way; having a gift that is mechanically or one ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We can determine which choice to make in a situation base on ethical standards and moral values. Even though, we may not control our
upbringing in this world, the ability to access over twenty percent of our brain is available. My point, though, is that as a child, you have less free
will but as an adult it is freely to exercise it. As we aspire to have all the supernatural or super abilities; it's impossible to achieve it. Thus, some
people will use a meditative process for getting supernatural powers. To acquire this kind of power, you need to mediate in an organized way.
However, it is strictly prohibited to do mediation to only achieve

Leibniz Free Will
The topic of free will has been rooted in the heart of philosophy for many centuries, and like many other topics in philosophy, there is never an
answer that everyone can agree on. The topic itself stems from a notion that morality can't seem to exist if we don't have free will. Furthermore, since
God is an all–knowing being, how can free will exist if he already knows what we are going to do? Leibniz offers an interesting argument to tackle
this issue. First, I want to explain his concept of the monad, then delve into his position on free will, and finally tie the two ideas together and
evaluate if his logic is sound. According to Leibniz, a Monad is the simplest building block for everything that we perceive in our reality. A monad has
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This doesn't seem to make any sense considering that God's best possible world is one with free will. However, I think that Leibniz would argue
that knowledge of the future doesn't necessarily mean a lack of choice in the matter. Like God, the Super monad facilitates and governs aspects of
the rational and perceiving monads, so having omniscience is inevitable when considering all the power that God has. The monad isn't making me
take any actions or fixing me on a set path, it simply has knowledge of my actions due to the power of God. To further clarify my position, I would
like to refer to the Monadology itself; Leibniz establishes the power of the monad on line 47 by saying "Thus God alone is the basic unitary thing,
the original simple substance. All created or derivative monads are produced by him.". From there he elaborates on the extent of God's power on line
48 "In God there is (i) power, which is the source of everything, then (ii) knowledge, which contains every single idea, and then finally (iii) will, which
produces changes in accordance with the principle of what is best. And these are what correspond, respectively, to what in created monads constitute (i)
the subject, or base, or basic nature of

Determinism And Free-Will
In this essay I will be addressing whether or not human beings are morally responsible for their actions. For one to be morally responsible for his/her
action they must take into account that the decision being made was from their own free–will. Leading us now to whether human beings have free will
or is it determined. If we were to say determinism is true, then no individual should be praised or punished for their actions due to the fact it was not
based on their own free action. If free–will applies, he/she who commits an act practicing their own free–will deserves to be praised or punished for
such an act. It could be argued that due to determinism people are not morally responsible for their actions, however this would be ridiculous. It ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An example of an external force could be parents supporting a type of behaviour thereby encouraging it. On the other hand an internal force would be
driven by hormones. Free–will believers assume that things are a bit difficult. They acknowledge that there is internal and external factors, but yet they
still believe that humans are free to choose their own behaviour. Stace theorizes the idea of compatibility or soft determinism. He argues that free–will
exists but to an extent which is known as soft determinism. Stace defines free act as "free acts are all caused by desire, motives, or by some sort of
psychological state of the agent's mind". Unfree acts on the other hand are "those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent".
Soft determinism is the view that determinism and free–will are compatible. It is a form of compatibilism. Soft determinism consists of two main
claims:
1. Determinism is true. Every human action or event, was causally determined. For example, if you drank coffee instead of tea last night, you could not
have chosen otherwise given your exact

Determinism And Free Will
Determinists believe that everything that occurs in the world follows both from the laws of nature and also the prior state of the universe. As a result,
they further believe that our actions are predetermined. Many philosophers believe this it offers a simple justification as to why people commit such
actions and, even more broad, why history precedes in the way that it does.
As an incompatibilist, I believe that determinism rules out the possibility of human freedom. Determinism relies on a cause and effect relationship
between the current state and the past. it uses empirical notions that past action, or experience, combines with natural law to basically set out our
actions. I cannot see how a philosophy that suggests this cause and effect ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Peter van Inwagen, a proponent of libertarianism, argues in his piece "Freedom of the Will" that freedom and a society dictated. Libertarians often
rationalize that one must believe that humans have free will so that we as a society are able to hold people accountable for their actions. Yet, as a hard
determinist, I would say that yes we do exist in a cause and effect world in which actions are predetermined; yet, we are the means of those actions.
van Inwagen also rejects determinism because he believes in the possibility of one having multiple futures – which determinism does not allow for.
Most importantly, he rejects determinism's central idea, the causality relationship, in favor of a world in which humans can choose their own paths.
This idea of choice is not sound as actions that one has no control over before birth indirectly influence their decision making, rationalizing, and so
forth. For instance, people born into households with lower incomes tend to go to lower performing schools. These lower performing schools impact
their ideas about society, their role in society, and in a broader view, the world. The "choices" they make were already decided before they were even
born from the socioeconomic conditions and genetic history since the beginning of time that had preceded the birth. Unknowingly, the person makes
"choices," which are not really their own, based off of

Free Will And The Door For Free Action
This paper contends that Sider is wrong. With a revised interpretation of free will and internalization of weight bestowal, indeterminacy might open the
door for free action. We will discuss what this paper means by free action and indeterminacy, explore why Sider thinks indeterminacy is incompatible
with free action, object Sider's arguments using Nozick's proposal of self–subsuming weight bestowal, and investigate possible counter arguments to
Nozick's proposition.
The libertarian view requires a free action to be non–random, uncaused and 'could have been done otherwise'. However, indeterminacy suggests that a
prior event provides a clue of a range of probable future events. Thus the indeterministic version of event is not uncaused. To explore the possibility of
indeterminacy to be compatible with free action, we have to tolerate this shortcoming. Therefore in this essay, we will regard a person who acts freely
as someone who could have non–randomly chosen other than the chosen non–random event. Whether the event is caused or uncaused is driven out of
the equation.
Sider argues that an indeterministic world governed by the law of probability inherently entails decision to be made by chance. Suppose Amir has
75%, 20%, and 5% probabilities of choosing a sandwich, a burger, and an orange for his lunch respectively. Imagine one hundred parallel worlds
exist. In 75 worlds, Amir would choose a sandwich; in 25 worlds, Amir would choose a burger; in 5 worlds, Amir would choose

Compatibilism Free Will
In the discussion of free will, one controversial issue has been that we do not have free will. On the one hand, determinists argue that every event
has a cause and that concept of free will is false reality because it cannot be explained by the scientific process. On the other hand, libertarians
believe the opposite is true. Whereas, others like compatibilists argue both beliefs is correct in the sense that we have to change the meaning of
freedom. My own view is that the position of the compatibilists solves the problem. I believe in compatibilism because both arguments is presented in
our world. For example, we know there is a cause for every event, whether it be from the natural world or from our decisions. For instance, in the
natural

The Theory Of Free Will
Essay 3 – Free Will Free will is the ability to choose freely and control our actions. Basically, free will shows the level of responsibility we claim for
our actions and decisions. Obviously, if outside forces determine our choices, we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if our choices
are made with total freedom than certainly we must claim responsibility for our choices and actions. God is justified in creating a world with the
existence of free will which philosophers such as D'Holbach debated over it and provided some objections; meanwhile, free will brought the potential
for existence of evil. On the other side, John Bender introduces "The prediction Room" to analyze human's free will. D'Holbach was a French–German
author and philosopher who argued against free will in his work "I Am Determined". D'Holbach used the idea of cause and effect to clarify that free
will doesn't exist. He believed that the universe is a huge deterministic machine, so in result humans do not have any power to decide and take action.
He believed an individual doesn't have any influence on their action, and all their actions are dependent of determining physical. In other word, all our
actions are determined and we do not have any control over them. To explain more, in "I Am Determined "D'Holbach says "There is, in point of fact,
no difference between the man who is cast out of the window by another, and the man who throws himself out of it, except that the

Questions On The Free Will
The Free Will Problem presents three different theses that, upon first glance, seem both intuitive and reasonable as long as they are considered
independently. It is not possible to entertain all three theses together while maintaining any level of consistency. The problem, therefore, is in
determining which of the three theses to discard. The first thesis is the Free Will Thesis, which simply states that agents sometimes act freely. This
thesis seems to be reasonable for at least two reasons. The first reason is that, more often than not, we feel as though we are free; that is we feel as
though we make a choice based on what we want, whether it be after careful consideration or merely on a whim. The very idea that we feel as though
we ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The second thesis in the Free Will problem is the Causal Determinism Thesis, which states that every event is causally determined to occur by
another event; every event has a cause. This thesis seems reasonable because it coincides with the way in which we view the world, that being
scientifically. Whenever an event occurs we naturally think that something caused that event. Imagine a cup of water falling over on a desk. It goes
against our common sense to say that nothing caused the cup of water to fall over, it just did. We may not always know what the cause is but we do
seem to think that a cause is necessary for the event to have happened and so far science seems to support this conclusion.
The third thesis in the Free Will Problem is Incompatibilism Thesis, which states that the Free Will Thesis and the Causal Determinism Thesis are
incompatible with one another; in other words, they are mutually exclusive. This thesis seems reasonable due to the following: if we define free will
as acting without a cause or not being caused to act, and the Free Will Thesis says agents sometime act freely, then anytime we, as agents, act freely, an
event occurs that does not have a cause. This is a direct violation of the Causal Determinism Thesis, which states that every event must have a cause.
All three theses seem intuitively plausible but it is impossible to hold all three theses together consistently. Choosing

Free Will and Determinism
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the
alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various "alternative features" (Van–Inwagen). Robert
Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom
takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I
believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world. Robert Kane begins by explaining
that there are ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If described from a physical perspective, free will looks like chance. However, the indeterministic chaotic process is also, experientially, the agent's
effort of will – something the agent is doing. The agent's choice is something that the agent does and not something that happens to the agent.
Therefore, the choice reflects the agent's effort, even though the outcome is not yet determined. Kane ends his argument by saying that these
reflections naturally raise further questions about whether the indeterminism required by an incompatibilist theory of free will is actually there in the
brain and that every undetermined, self–forming, free choice is the initiation of what might be called a "value experiment" whose justification lies in
the future and is not fully explained by past reasons. Derk Pereboom's position is an agnostic approach about causal determinism. He contends that
if causal determinism were true, we do not have the sort of free will required for moral responsibility. As a hard compatibilist, he believes that life
without this kind of free will need not preclude a sense of meaning based on morality, and, in some respects, it could even be support it. When
arguing against compatibilism, Pereboom first defines compatibilism as free will of the type required for moral responsibility. He says that it is
compatible with determinism and that compatibilists will say that we do in fact have this sort of free will. He then defines a libertarianist as someone

Free Will Jacob Arminius was born in 1560 and died in 1690. Although Arminius originally began his learned career as a follower of Calvin's teachings,
his interpretation of scripture eventually brought him in direct contrast to Calvin's. While Arminius is not credited with developing the doctrine of free
will, his name has become synonymous with it. Likewise, the movement he inspired became synonymous with "anti–Calvinism." Arminianism
maintains that the Bible does in fact communicate the message of predestination. However, Arminianism conveys that God by way of His
foreknowledge was able to look into the future and observe who would choose Him–God then predestined them. Moreover, Jesus gave Himself a
ransom for all, literally. As a... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The major sticking point with this theory is that free will allows mankind to make a choice– either accept the gift of salvation or reject it.
As mentioned before, there is agreement between the two camps of thought regarding predestination and election being taught in the Bible. Clearly,
where the difference lies is in the interpretation. Those backing the free will doctrine believe that God, by way of foreknowledge knows who will
and will not be saved. However, He does not interfere with free will and does not predestine the outcome. Instead, the predestined or elect are those
that He knows ahead of time will make the choice to accept the gift of salvation. In order for one to accept the gift of salvation there are certain
conditions set forth by God in Scripture that one must meet. For example, Luke states,
While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which
he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the
dead. (Acts 17:30–31)
One of the conditions set forth by God in Scripture is that people must repent. The two camps of thought are also at odds regarding whom benefits
from the sacrifice of Christ. Universal Atonement implies that Christ gave himself a ransom for all. The Apostle Paul says as much in 1Timothy,
This is right and is

Frankenstein Free Will
Scott Adams once said "[f]ree will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure." Even though most people have free
will, they always choose the decision that will lead them to the most happiness. If one is given a choice to be courageous and happy or safe but not
satisfied, the logical choice they would chose is the primary. This decision is evidently seen in John Milton's Paradise Lost and the film The Matrix,
where Eve from Paradise Lost and Neo from The Matrix face an opportunity to discover pleasure or endure the same, boring life they were
experiencing before. To no surprise, the characters chose the happy route because their "free will" would not let them go the other route of
dissatisfaction. As a result ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The convincing arguments Satan and Morpheus provides makes the pathway for ignorance nonexistent. When Morpheus holds out the red pill and
blue pill, he tells Neo, "[y]ou take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe what you believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit–hole goes" (The Matrix). Morpheus alludes to the story of Alice
in Wonderland to convince Neo of all the great possibilities that come with taking the red pill. He also repeats the word "believe" while
discouraging Neo from taking the blue pill which shows the uncertainty Neo will have to live with for the rest of life. Neo is basically forced to
take the red pill at this point because it will lead him to the path of greatest pleasure. Additionally, Satan recounts his own experience of eating from
the tree of knowledge: "do not believe / Those rigid threats of death; ye shall not die: / [...] Look on me, / Me who have touched and tasted, yet both
lived / And life more perfect have attained than fate" (Milton 684–689). Satan uses logos to further attract Eve into eating the apple since he has
firsthand knowledge of the effects of the apple. He then uses the word "life more perfect" which sparks Eve's motive into eating the apple. Even
though Eve is basically forced to eat the apple, she is still thoughtful with her decision. With the help of persuasive language, Eve and Neo are
compelled into choosing the happiest option in their

Free Will Definition
The concept of free will fundamentally breaks down into the interpretation of its two constituent words. The word free is a direct link to the
concept of freedom, which Descartes describes as "the ability to do or not do something". (O'Connor) Freedom is not constrained. There can be no
limits placed on it, lest it lose the fundamental nature of its definition. Hume reasoned that the sense of freedom linked to free will was that of
liberty. "that liberty is not a power of acting, but a power of choosing. If I can do what I want, but I can't choose what I want, then perhaps I am not
free" (Lacewing 5) I accept this is the more complete ideal of freedom, because it encompasses what free will ought to be. It also raises interesting
questions... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(174) These tend to be determinisms that govern individual action, on a more personal level. The second facet of determinism is known as global
determinism.(174) These include physical, theological, and logical determinism. Each of these address the idea of determinism from a grander scale,
where actions and events, surrounding an individual, are directly impacted by larger principles outside of the control of the agent. For example,
physical determinism is when everything that exists or occurs is simply an arrangement of physical particles that conform to the laws of physics. Our
tossing and failing to "swish" the paper ball in the waste basket was caused by a number of other events, which includes our choosing to toss the
paper, which was also determined by other factors leading up to our decision. Theological determinism claims everything to be pre–determined by God,
which is another essay all in itself. Logical determinism was described as whatever happens later could not have been otherwise, and can not contradict
the truth value of whatever sentence or claim we make at the moment. This form of determinism is important to the theory I will be

Free-Will And Determinism
Free Will and Determinism– is it an Illusion? Determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism are three significantly different views on where
unaccountability might stop and where free will and moral responsibility begin. Determinism is the strict opinion that every action and decision is the
cause of an event, genetics or the environment prior to that action. Quite the opposite is libertarianism, which happens to be the genuine belief in free
will as well as the denial of universal causation. Finally, deep self–compatibilism meshes both of these stand points together and introduces the idea
that one's action can be free if it stems purely out of personal, authentic desire. Since all three judgments have a backbone of convincing... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Second, Silenus would agree that if something is caused it can never be free. Silenus is very high on himself as he rarely ever takes Hench's threats
seriously because he is intelligent enough to understand that Hench feels responsible for anything that he does. This is partially because Silenus is
constantly reminding him that he isn't responsible for how his mind works and thus can never be held accountable for any action that may blossem
from his desires. Third, since Silenus concludes that he is not responsible for what he is, free will and moral responsibility must cease to exist in his
case. "Don't be silly Hench. Only human beings are responsible. I am what I am," (Satyr, 218). The Satyr considers himself to be above human
responsibility based on both his pre–determined genetic information, and also his environment when he's reduced to cleaning his creator's lab. To add,
all–human acquaintances Silenus has had the displeasure of meeting label him as an untrustworthy beast. By soaking up human behavior like a
sponge, Silenus discovers that people can be extremely selfish, so he decides it is ok to mock this behavior in a very direct manner. Therefore, Silenus
the Satyr and his determinist view that there are reasons behind every action have even Hench convinced that he is in fact liable for all negative
outcomes that Silenus may initiate. In the beginning of the story, Hench is

As a concept, free will offers a tremendous opportunity to pursue rationality of purpose. Within this rationality, individuals find wisdom whenever they
exercise it appropriately. Both Skinner and Bandura state that free will explore the determinant to the ability of humanity to discover the space around
them (Koons, 2002). Over time, philosophers have maintained that free will offers itself as a gift to humanity. It is presumed, therefore, that free will is
God's ordination, and as such, man should not precede it. In the same vein, the authors suggest that, if not exercised properly, free will becomes a curse,
a total scourge to humanity. In this context, free will can transmute into a deadly weapon that impedes the general well–being of ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Skinner and Bandura in their studies acknowledged that determinist ideologists have a way of conceptualizing the significance of socializing while
recognizing that certain sets of behavior often guide such associations. Bandura and Skinner acknowledge that compatibilist thinking appreciates that
the allocating of praise and blame as effective ways of securing social control among societies. Determinists, therefore, have a way of encouraging
individuals to undertake labeling acts that put individuals' actions on the glare of either right or wrong. Within these considerations, Bandura and
Skinner promote that punishing the persons who commit acts seen in the estimation of the society, as wrongs are necessary to perpetuate the
determinist ideology. (Shultz, 2013) On the other hand, rewarding the individuals who commit acts deemed as right in the estimation of the society
are needed, as this will most likely make the society a flawless institution. Under these schemes of things, liberty is the tag of an ideal society, and
every society must strive to partake of the norm. Skinner observes that humanity has a duty to enhance freedom as a societal norm in all societies.
Accordingly, this is the first step in advancing the concept of free will as a societal embracement. Finally, within compatibilist ideologies, the idea of
free will donate new certainties that reinforce old beliefs that clash with false views in the process. While

The Argument Of Free Will
Philosophers have debated and struggled with the argument of free will for centuries. In my opinion, I would like to believe that we have free will
because I would hope that my decisions are mine and not of some powerful overlord or an advanced civilization in a simulation. Over the years there
have been many theories or speculations about free will. Some philosophers would define free will as "the ability to do what we want to do". With this
definition, we do have free will because most of the time we can do what we want. However, we could be made to believe that it is our choice, but if
we were to repeat a scenario where you choose option 'A' we would repeatedly pick option 'A' because it could not happen any other way. Different
religions

Free Will : An Illusion
Jenna Santos
PHL 150
Dr. Caery Evangelist
23 April 2015
Free Will: an Illusion Casual determinism put simply, is the theory that all things happen for a particular reason and everything is predetermined. It is
the idea all the events in one's life can be explained, and each event has a particular reason for being. If everything is predetermined, then this therefore
suggests that the future is fixed which further suggests that we can possibly predict the behavior of things. The theory of determinism ultimately
suggests that we don't the capacity to have free will because all future events are destined to occur, and furthermore we do not posses the knowledge
to figure out whether it can be proved true or false (Hoefer). There has been three positions that have developed concerning the theory of causal
determinism: hard determinist, compatibilist or soft determinist, and compatibilist. In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the
free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don't have free will by
addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to
common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the
position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

The problem of Free Will
In the following essay I will describe the problem of free will and explain several different responses to the problem. These responses will be
derived from the determinist, libertarian, and compatibilist views. I will end the essay by arguing that the compatibilist view seems to best
address the problem of free will, but does not necessarily solve it. The problem of free will arises from two conflicting ideas. The first idea is that
people have free will. Having free will means that people have the ability to choose and act on what they would like to do. Most people seem
accept this idea easily and live their lives believing that to some extent they are in control of the choices they make. If this idea is true then people
can be held responsible and subsequently praised or blamed for their choices or actions. For example, a male student named Bob can be blamed
for cheating if he chooses to use his notes while taking his test even though the professor instructed his class to not use their notes. He can be
blamed for cheating because Bob chose to use his notes on his own and no one forced Bob to cheat. The second of the two conflicting ideas that
most people seem to readily accept is known as determinism. Determinism is at odds with free will because it states that "every event has a cause,"
meaning even the choices that we make are not caused by ourselves (Conee and Sider 113). In other words, the cause of something can be indefinitely
traced backwards. Science seems to

The Importance Of Free Will
Freedom is a very powerful word and it can mean so many different things for different people. Some people would say that free will is the most
important thing we have, but what does free will really mean and how do we know that we are doing something because of our free will? "Freedom
lies in expressing your own determinism, not somebody elseВґs. It is not the determinism that makes a difference, but instead the ownership. If
freedom is what we prefer, it is preferable to be determined by forces that originate in ourselves and not in others." This is a passage from Free Will
written by Matt Ridley. According to this passage, determinism has a big impact on how our free will works. We cannot control our determinism since
that is something nature ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ridley is discussing in this passage and throughout the entire text, the connection between free will, and determinism in a generic aspect and
environmental aspect. But what does determinism mean? "The belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people
have no real ability to make choices or control what happens" (Merriam–WebsterВґs LearnerВґs Dictionary). Understanding the meaning of
determinism is vital to understand what Ridley wants to say in this text. When Ridley states that freedom lies in our own determinism and not
somebody elseВґs, he means that every human being has its own determinism that is created from a genetic aspect and an environmental aspect.
Our freedom lies in our unique determinism and what is created specifically for us. When we follow the determinism that has been creating within
our self's, then we are truly acting from our own free will. As he states, it is not the determinism that makes a differences since determinism is
already decided for us regardless of the decisions we make since those decisions has been made on the foundation of something that happened to
us, that we might not even know affected us. If you want to look at it from the determinism in the genetic point of view it is the same rules that
apply, even if we think we are making a decision based on our free will, it might be because of personality traits we inherited from our parents. I do
agree with the points he is making in this passage. I really think he is going deep into this subject and exploring how we humans work. If I think
about freedom and was asked to explain the word in one sentence I think I would say something similar to: Freedom is when we are allowed to act
and think on our own without the pressure of any

The Topic Of Free Will
The topic of free will is an interesting and thought–provoking debate. As a child, I always believed that I had freedom to make my own choices, but
now I am not so sure. To start, we must first define the term 'free will.' According to the Oxford English Dictionary, free will is "spontaneous or
unconstrained will" or the "inclination to act without suggestion from others" ("free will"). There are four major views on the topic of free will. One is
fatalism which is the view that all things are determined to happen but prior events do not influence these events. Another view,determinism, is the
belief that all choices are already established due to prior events. The compatibilist view is one where determinism and free will can coexist. And
the last is libertarianism, the belief that we have free will and nothing determines the choices that we make (Class Notes). Philosophers like Barron
Holbach (determinists) argue that there is no such thing as free will, while William James (libertarian) and G.E. Moore (compatibilist) beg to differ. I
agree with Moore and the compatibilist view. Baron Holbach held the view that we have no free will. He was a materialist and determinist meaning he
defended the view that "everything is subjected to laws of nature." The view that human beings are subjected to the laws of nature shows that there is
no freedom to make choices because we just follow what nature commands of us. He stated that "actions are a consequence of temperament, received

Free Will Arguments
Even thought the idea that everyone has free will is widely accepted and appreciated, it is obvious that by the very definition of the word "free" no
such thing can exist. The idea that free will exists has been supported by several arguments against the idea that the everything in the world has been
previously determined rather than arguments that are actually for the existence of free will. This is a very key point in the argument that free will has
never and can never exist. If free will is not actually free then it cannot be considered free will. If free will isn't free will then it has never been free will
and can never be free will. If there has never been and will never be free will, then we cannot have free will. Thus, we do not have free will. ... Show
The main argument seems to be that we have free will because we have the choice to do one thing or another thing. This, however, is not freedom.
Everyday I am made to think that I have the freedom to choose what I want to eat for lunch. When I arrive at the commons, I have a limited amount
of options. At the Panini grill, I can choose between a turkey and cranberry Panini or a Caprese Panini. Do I really have the freedom to choose what
Panini I want for lunch? No, I don't. I have a limited number of options meaning I have a limited freedom. If my freedom is limited, it is not free and
therefore is not actual freedom.
By definition, the word "free" implies without hindrance. In this sense, the only literal rather than applied sense of the word, freedom can be found
nowhere. Humans are only free to do what their bodies and the laws of nature permit them to do. They are only free to speak in words that are
available in the language and with sounds that their mouths limit. They are free to think only what the brain will let them. The fact that there are so
many constraints on all possibilities just ensures the fact that there is indeed no true

The Relevence of Free Will
Genetics play a huge part in who we are. But we also have free will. –Aidan Quinn Basically this quote is saying how we are raised in the home
determines a big factory of how discipline we are however we still must take into consideration that we are still held accountable for our action
regardless. Although how we were raised in the home play a major role with the choices we make in our entire lives as an individual. I do believe that
morals have a strong factor in free will and determinism. Homes that teach morals and values in life have a strong factor in with their social behavior
skill.
Free Will is relevant within the criminal justice sector because I do believe the vast majority do have control of what they which is why they should be
held accountable for their actions as well. However, determinism does have a strong relevance within the criminal justice system as well. The reason
for my bias answer is because those who have clinically proven diagnoses of psychological mental disorder should be taken into consideration when
committing crime. When one research the word free will the word is define as the ability to choose how to act (Free Will, n.d.). Then when
researching the word determinism is defined as a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena
are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. Clearly the both are incompatible but they can work with each other in the criminal justice
ethics

The View On Free Will
Avalon Singer
29 September 2014
Topic 1: What I Believe is the Correct View on Free Will
We are raised to believe that we are the makers of our own destiny. Every decision we make is our own, and we are free citizens in every sense of the
word.
Although this thought is comforting, I do not consider it to be true. I think that free will is an illusion. The idea of free will is what keeps us sane and
motivates us in our lives, but is not what controls our lives. I presume that our world is ruled by determinism, yet due to the fact that people believe that
they are acting of their own free will they should be held morally responsible for their actions.
In definition of the term determinism, our past actions and events govern what occurs in the present. Therefore, our present actions will not only
influence but will decide our future actions. In other words, determinism is the belief that if our past actions or decisions had been different then the
outcome of our future actions would be as well. Philosopher A.J Ayer coincides with this in his statement: "It may be said of the agent that he would
have acted otherwise if the causes of his action had been different, but they being what they were, it seems to follow that he was bound to act as he
did" (475). According to Natural laws, the universe is comprised of cause and effect relationships with each cause having an effect and each effect
having a cause. In trying to declare determinism to be true above free will,

Free Choice Vs Free Will
In today's modern western world within the United States of America (US) there are opportunities with multitudes of decisions from the freedom of
will and the freedom of choice in which most part of the society will experience within their life time. Although there are multitudes of choices
available to choose from, individuals still have a say to choose or not to choose to buy products or services (e.g., buy, not buy). Choice is more than
simply choosing from A, B, C or D, it is a mandatory process that holds one accountable for their decisions (Paul Hiebert, 2014).
Schwartz (University of Maryland, University College (UMUC), 2006), in his presentations argues and suggest that with the abundant increase in
today's choices and the pursuit to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I assert that every choice that is available is not necessary needed for everyone. There are sets of precepts and sets of standards that automatically
narrow down ones choices (Rossiter et. al (2105). Furthermore, no matter how many choices presented to choose from, an individual's capacity has
limited the intake, sorted, and narrowed down choices to make a rash decision. "Keeping up the Jones" has been an old saying, yet quite popular
today (e.g., movie title), however, has not changed individuals wanting more than they have since grandparents made this statement in the past.
Therefore, what is the logical standpoint of wanting something that one cannot afford in the first place? Decisions on products and services are
rarely made from just choosing alone, it requires one to already have a set of standards in place that are heavily imbedded by internal and external
influences (i.e., through family, friends, history, knowledge, and experiences) to begin with, and then ones free will to decide from remaining options.
Furthermore, pricing, style, color, availability, urgency, need, and wants, etc. further plays a role in narrowing down choices automatically. Take for
example; ones need to replace a heater in the dead of winter where there are 25 choices of heaters. Available choices would be dictated (i.e., limited,
narrowed) by many factors (i.e., history, knowledge,

Free Will And Free Choice
Freedom of Will
The alarm clock sounds, you get up and stand before your wardrobe, facing a decision. The white shirt or the blue, both clean, both equally nice, but
it is still an easy decision. The blue. You revel in your creativity and ready yourself for the day to come. The freedom you have always known
permitted the choice, your free will grants you this privilege. Or does it? Free will is a false concept often confused with free choice. Free will does not
truly exist, the limitations set by nature and the influence of other people hinder the ability to choose without the impact of past experiences.
As Barbara Smoker, a British Humanist activist and freethought advocate stated, "Free choice means you are not forced by other people or what is
outside of you. Free will is the idea that you are not programmed by past and present circumstances to do what you do now," (1). We as human beings
are naturally reliant on other human beings for our daily dose of interaction. This is where the magic begins. Everyone has an opinion, everyone has
criticism, and everyone has different likes and dislikes, however they are not our own. Most of our childhood experiences shape the people we become.
For example, if you had a dog instead of a cat, and that dog was fairly well behaved, you are likely to prefer dogs to cats when you grow older. Or, if
you had a dog and it was not well behaved, it is likely you will grow to dislike either the breed or dogs in general. Our opinions and our

Essay on Free Will
Free Will
A definition of free will, as we have seen, can be misunderstood and easily distorted. For the purpose of this essay free will, will be defined as the
ability to chose, express ones feelings, emotions, or actions unconditionally.
From the first time I understood the meaning of what free will was, I believed in it 100%. I had the right and ability to choose what ever I liked. Not
only did I believe that I had free will but if I ever heard otherwise I felt that the other person did not have a clear understanding of what free will was,
and as a result I could demonstrate a fairly strong persuasive argument opposing anything but the existence of free will. I would illustrate a situation in
which there seemed to be no ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I grew up in a household where I was taught that I was and will always be free. I also never had any religious affiliation within my first 8 years of
schooling, which might have influenced me to think differently. The illustration of a gun to ones head is also rooted within the environment of others
as well as my own. We can assume that the majority of people would want to live in that situation and therefore follow what is being asked of them.
Now is that there free will? I don't think so. The fact that they choose to live is based on their enjoyment of life and there lessons that they have been
taught by their upbringing, this is their environment. The same would be true on an extreme end. Somebody may make the decision to not obey and
sacrifice his or her life because of extreme misery and discontent. Furthermore, the reason for the unhappiness may be a result of heredity. The victim's
mother could have used drugs, or something similar that which had an effect on her child.
God plays an interesting role in this explanation of free will. Presently, after having about 7 years of religious education I feel like I am educated
enough to speak of God. I believe that people can be affected by God within there decision making and often have God make the choice for them. For
example, the choice to remain celibate until marriage, that is God's wishes

Free Will In Macbeth
Originally derived from the Greek Goddesses Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, fate is believed to be something that no mortal power can change while
free–will is completely up to oneself. The story of Macbeth by Shakespeare focuses on the aspect of fate and how free–will affects that. The main
character, Macbeth, gets numerous prophecies throughout the story that are described to be his fate. On the other hand, how he fulfills the prophecies
are solely up to him. Shakespeare utilizes the prophecies told by the three witches as an initiative to Macbeth's actions, for the prophecies are
Macbeth's fate but his actions are based on free–will which illustrates that fate influences the decisions made through free–will.
The witches give Macbeth a prophecy ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After killing Duncan, Macbeth remembers the prophecy Banquo received: "Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none" (Shakespeare 1.3.67). Feeling
that his kingship is being threatened he thinks, "For them the gracious Duncan have I murdered, / Put rancors in the vessel of my peace / Only for
them, and mine eternal jewel / Given to the common enemy of man / To make them kings–the seeds of Banquo kings! / Rather than so, come fate into
the list / And champion me to th' utterance (3.1.66–72). Macbeth feels that he killed Duncan only to allow for Banquo's sons to become kings. By
saying "Only for them, and mine eternal jewel / Given to the common enemy of man" Macbeth is referring to how his "eternal jewel", or kingship, is
being threatened by the sons of Banquo. Wanting to fulfill his original prophecy of becoming king, Macbeth acts and decides to kill Banquo which
shows that "the initial impetus of [his] actions seems to be condoned by forces beyond mortal intelligence" (Major 78). Macbeth's decision to kill
Banquo was solely inspired by the prophecies that both he and Banquo received which contained their fates. Macbeth felt threatened by Banquo and his
sons, so he made the decision to murder Banquo in order to protect his own prophecy of becoming King of Scotland, thus, illustrating that fate initiates
the actions that Macbeth does in order to protect the his

Free Will In Macbeth
In many stories fate is said to determine the paths that people lead in their lives. However, even though some events can seem like fate to the people
experiencing them, these people always made their own decisions that led to them. Although some of the events in the tragedy Macbeth by William
Shakespeare may lead readers to believe that fate determined many of Macbeth's actions, the truth is that Macbeth made all of the decisions in the story
through his own free will.
Despite the common association between the supernatural and fate, Macbeth made all of his decisions throughout the play with his own free will,
including choosing to fulfill the prophecies of the supernatural. In the beginning of the play, Macbeth stated that "If chance will ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
In the beginning of the play, a group of witches prophesize that Macbeth would become king, and Macbeth decides to act on this and kill the king
himself. After killing Duncan, he states that "There is none but (Banquo) whose being I do fear" and decides to kill him as well (3.1.59). He heard
the witches say that Banquo's sons would be kings, which threatened Macbeth's position. Therefore, because Banquo and his family would likely
become a threat, Macbeth killed them. This choice to remove Banquo was in order to protect himself, and was a result of the free will that he had.
Similarly, in the final act when an army was rebelling against him, he told his staff to "Hang those that talk of fear" (5.3.43). He did not want fear to
spread through his town because this would weaken his defense, and so this statement was another example of protecting himself. In fact, this
command illustrates his free will even further because none of the supernatural had anything to do with it, showing that the decision was made
completely by free will. However, some may say that these examples of removing his enemies were a result of the fated desires of the supernatural,
such as when Macbeth said "Hear (the bell) not, Duncan, for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell"

Free Will
The Concept of Free Will Free will is the ability to make your choices in life without having any consequences. We may feel the existence of free will
until we start thinking and then figure out there really is not. Thus, free will is nothing other than just an illusion. The moment a person is born, they
are confined to a land of law, a set biological makeup, and environmental factors that are beyond their control. Hence, human beings do not have free
will and ultimate responsibilities thus the punishment for their misdeeds are not justifiable. "A human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will
what he wants."– Einstein. We, people, consider ourselves as a free being as we think we are capable of making our choices as per our need and... Show
Hence, we are not responsible for our misdeeds as we do not have free will. Let us take an example of a computer system. Computers do not have
its user makes free will and all its choices. For instance, the computer you just bought spending lot of money is affected by a virus that duplicates
your file and makes it accessible to other users within the network. Would you shut it down and put it in your basement for its misdeed holding it
responsible or take it to the technician and get it fixed? Another thing to question would be, if one should be punished for misdeeds if they are
mentally ill. People that are mentally ill do not have the capability of functioning in the society like most other people do. This is due to impairments
of the brain that is way beyond anyone's control. In some court cases, this disability is highly considered. If the criminal does not have the free will to
perform these misdeeds, how can they be held accountable for such wrong

Free Will Aristotle
In order to determine whether man has free will, it is important to define the notion of free will. Free will, as defined by Kevin Timpe of the
University of Tennessee at Martin, is the notion that person has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. In basic terms, free will is the
belief that a person can make a choice without the choice being predetermined by a higher power. There is a serious debate as to whether man has free
will or if life is predetermined with choices already made for a person. With such a contentious debate, there are various different beliefs on the
existence of free will within philosophy. In this paper, I will examine thinkers of Philosophy as well as thinkers of the field of Jewish Philosophy.
Philosophy ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Aristotle believes there is free will because of the belief in character of humans is a clean slate and not predetermined. Also, he believes that nature
helps us adapt our morals and virtues. To add, Aristotle says that in metaphysics, an accident has no predetermined cause as it just happens due to
chance. Saadia Goan believes that there is free will for a few different reasons. He outright explicitly says so in his writings as well as he believes
that God would not have given his the Commandments with punishments and rewards spelt out for humans if there was not the ability to choose
whether or not to follow God's rules. Alike Saadia Goan, Maimonides says that if there were no free will, God would not have given us his
commandments as a person would just follow the predetermined fate that God would have set up which would be following God's rules without any
need to show the actual rules to the Jewish people. Overall, these three thinkers while they believe or at least hint at believing in the concept of free
will, they all use different techniques to prove

Compatibilism And Free Will
Yadata Osman Dr. Robinson Survey Philosophical Thought Section 060 11/08/2015 Paper 1 Compatibilists compare free will with freedom of action
which is the lack of self–control. We are free to make our own choices, and we have free will, if we are not bounded by physical restraints. Freewill is
defined as the belief that our behavior is under our own self–control. A determinist, however, would argue and say that people are not free, and
therefore are not at fault for their actions. In this essay, I will argue that free will is not valid based on my religious beliefs. I am a follower of the
Christian faith, but my perspective on the subject shifts daily. I am very bias with the concept of freewill and determinism. My perspective tends to
follow

Free Will Definition
A question which still puzzles many people is do we have free will or is our every decision predetermined? I believe that our every decision is
based on free will because when we make the decision to do something, we risk our lives everyday doing what we want rather than just letting things
happen such as fate. I think our every decision is based on free will because we decide whether we want to go out and party on a Saturday night or if
we want to stay in the house. We decide whether we want to be friends with someone or if we want to keep them as enemies. We decide whether we
want to have a boyfriend/girlfriend or if we want to be single and do what we want. We make decisions ourselves, and we do not let things just
happen. Free will

Free Will Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Leslie Thomas

More from Leslie Thomas (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Free Will Essay