A Reflection On The Creed Of Freewill Essay

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.

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

Many times I find myself sitting and wondering whether I am fully free or not. I wake up every single morning and do the same routine, which is eat breakfast, go to class or work, do homework, go to the gym, shower, and then go to bed. Does this truly mean I am free? There are a lot of questions that you can ask yourself while following a routine. Is this really the path I should have taken? Were my choices determined by external factors? Determinism is the thesis that an any instant there is only one physically possible future. Robert Blatchford and Walter Terence Stace, two philosophers, both agree that determinism is true, although they have two different views on whether this means that people are free or not. Blatchford believes that everything is predestined. Stace on the other hand, believes that a person chooses what they do because of free will. In this essay I am going to discuss both of the philosophers’ views more in depth and why I favor Stace’s view over Blatchford’s.

Nasseli, Andrei. "Do We Have Free Will?" Reformation21. N.p., Aug. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2015..

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

The focus of this essay will be an argument by Peter Van Inwagen known as the “Consequence Argument.” The argument’s main goal is to refute compatibilism, or the idea that free will and determinism are reconcilable. Van Inwagen’s argument can be expressed as follows:

In the middle of this philosophical war, Sider presents the idea of soft determinism, which is a synthesis of conflicting viewpoints that aims to make sense of the contradiction between determinism and free will. In this context, choices are viewed as the result of causal processes, but people are still able to make their own decisions. Sider finds comfort in this complex structure, recognising it as the first sign of balance among the competing ideologies. On closer inspection, despite its apparent appeal, soft determinism's effectiveness as a conflict resolution is still debatable. We do not know what was chosen for us before our birth, and even if we did it might clash with our final free action.

Van Inwagen argues that Determinism and free will are incompatible, Dennett argues that they are. Van Inwagen presents a

Free will is freedom of the mind from causal determination. Many advocates of free will argue the irrelevancy of the law of causality: “Every effect must have a cause; the same cause always produces the same effects.” Since a choice is not an effect, advocates of free will argue that the law of causality is irrelevant; however, it must be recognized that the one’s choices are limited by their heritage and environment. Moreover, a choice is affected by what one desires, which we affirmed were determined by heritage and experience; therefore, we can soundly conclude that one’s choice is determined.

I cannot say exactly whether I believe that free will exists or not, but I do know that there are multiple arguments that support it and deny it. We must first determine what free will is before we can say that we are free, even in our deterministic world. Free will exists when a being, if given all other causal factors in the universe, it is able to choose more than one thing. Although, we have many uses for the word ‘freedom’, but the kind of freedom in this case would apply to someone even if they had a gun forcedly pointed to their head. Causal determination allows some freedom of the mind but not freedom from violence. Throughout this paper we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Hard Determinism and Libertarianism,

The philosophical questioning of free will is really a matter of the volition of man. That is, free will is a central dogma that many subscribe to that empowers them to be accountable for their own lives and that provides meaning to something that is largely unknown. Free will proves to be a profound and highly debated topic in the philosophical realm. Whether free will truly exists or not is largely implicating in how one perceives the world and, even, other more life-defining topics. Though there is great debate on free will, the following argues that the philosophical belief of compatibilism rationalizes the most logically sound stance upon free will.

The following paper was made with the purpose of presenting an objection to Van Inwagen’s argument which states that free will and determinism are incompatible. First let’s start by giving Van Inwagen’s point of view about determinism and free will. Inwagen says that “free will requires the ability to act otherwise than we do". Determinism on the other hand says that "for every instant of time, there is a proposition that expresses the state of the world at that instant". As a result our actions and decisions are already determined.

Recall: In “The Case Against Free Will” the authors present several claims: 1) The universe is a huge deterministic system where all events are result of prior causes. 2) Human actions are shaped by genetic determinism and environmental determinism. 3) All behaviors and actions of men are triggered by genetic make-up and social conditioning; thus, man has no free will. 4.)

Free will vs. determinism is an argument as complex, intertwined, and co-dependent as nature vs. nurture or the age-old question of whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first. Philosophers have contemplated the question for ages, and arrived at no satisfactory answer.

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