Free-Will Vs Determinism

There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

If determinism exist, can free will exist as well? According to determinism, everything is already set up to occur by a past event. This means that there is only one possible future based on the causes beforehand. So, by the laws of nature and our free will, there is a deep connection of understanding. If determinism exist that would mean the past and future are unavoidable. Thus, not giving a choice to be made by free will. Every cause that happens will have an effect and that is not a choice made by free will if everything is already

The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to

Does determinism imply that there is no free will, as the incompatibilists argue, or does it allow for free will, as the compatibilists argue?

The third key term is compatibilism. Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the belief that free will and determinism can coexist. More specifically, while external forces, such as upbringing, and internal forces, such as personal desires, have influence on one’s actions, one still has the ability to make the choice (holding that they are not being physically forced to do something). For example, Jane is invited to a party. Her parents taught her that drinking has many negative repercussions but on the other hand, Jane has been overwhelmed and kind of wants to go out. Jane chooses to not attend the party. According to compatibilism, while Jane’s decision was influenced by her upbringing and by her personal desire, she still ultimately had the freedom of choice and chose to not go.

Philosophers through history, especially those of late have debated over the matter of free will. The argument of humans being free is contradicted by a notion of a pre-determined fate, one that helps to conceive the notion of an omnipotent god. The three major groups of thought on this issue determinists, libertarians and compatibilists all have varying views of free will, while compatibilism is a combination of beliefs of the other two groups. A compatibilist would reject any notion that physical determinism impedes free will, as an event may be determined but done voluntarily.

In order to raise an objection let us be clear on the meaning of determinism and free will. Determinism it’s a philosophical idea, which states that every action that we made is inevitable and it’s has been already

The problem of freewill concerns whether it is possible to retain agency in a world where events are necessitated. For the sake of clarity, my definition of freewill is “the power of acting or not acting without constraint”. Universal causation or hard determinism (both terms I shall use interchangeably) is the belief that “events in the future are fixed, as a matter of natural law, by the past”. Indeterministic theories such as libertarianism preserve freewill by maintaining that not all events are determined by preceding causes. Both indeterminism and determinism are incompatibilist theories as they imply that universal causation erodes the prospect of freewill. Compatibilist theories, like agent-causalism assert that causation doesn’t necessarily mean we do not have free will.

Imagine that there is clear reasoning behind every event in each and everyone of our lives that we cannot control nor manipulate in any way. This is where the argument of “free will vs. determinism” comes into play. The concept of determinism states that outside factors affect our decisions and “free will” and “motivation” are just illusions that conceal the true beliefs towards human behavior (McLeod, 2013). This concept has a lot of support and most behaviorists argue against free will. To put it simply “free will” is the idea that most of our decisions come from within our minds and we are able to change our behaviors (McLeod, 2013). The argument between free will and determinism has scientific evidence for each creating a good amount of

According to Greene and Cohen’s article, the problem of free will pertains to the conflicting definitions of free will and determinism. Free will can be defined as the freedom to decide one’s next state; having free will means that one’s choices do not depend on past events. Oppositely, determinism states that every condition in the present depends on past events and all conditions are entirely based on physical laws. Determinism thus claims that there is only one predetermined way a given agent will act. Based on the definitions of free will and determinism, it appears that free will and determinism cannot both be right. If one’s choices are independent of past events, then physical laws and previous conditions do not determine those choices. If the opposite is true, then free will cannot exist. For most people, aspects of both free will and determinism seem correct even though it cannot be so. This is the problem of free will.

In this way, we can protect both science and mankind. Because in incompatibilism freewill conflict with science. Thus, as per compatibilism, freedom is compatibilism with determinism (Sider 2014, pg. 128-129). The issue was that we misjudge the idea of freewill. We have to clear up conceptual confusion about freedom. Determinism seems to conflict with freewill due to misjudge the idea of freewill. If ‘free’ means ‘uncaused’ then contention would be real and after understanding the idea, the conflict will clear. "But if free does not mean uncaused then according to compatibilism ‘free action is one that is caused in the right way’. Moving further, hard determinism and libertarian says that all causes could be treated similarly. Does not matter how it is caused" (Sider 2014, pg. 128). But, compatibilism reply that all causes are not comparable. Some philosopher rejects compatibilism on the premise of actions that were caused by some early occasion even before my

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

Events that occur and actions taken are simply the result of an ongoing, necessary causal chain. As Democritus states: “Causal deterministic laws control the motion of atoms and that everything, including human minds, consists merely of atoms in a void.” [1] We are creatures in a series of inevitable actions with a predictable, single future looming. Leucippus, a fellow of Democritus claims, “nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.” [1] However, these causal chains need to begin somewhere, and this start of a series of events is what Aristotle calls “archai”. [8] Indeterminists state that there can be certain events that occur without a cause, and this chance allows for multiple outcomes that can be chosen from. Compatibilists on the other hand, is the belief that will and moral responsibility can be accepted and free as long as it is part of the causal chain. This theory focuses on the differences between the freedom of will and the freedom of action and the causal relationship between the two that permits acknowledgement of our own decisions and free will. However, both camps agree on the fact that actions are willed.

The question whether one is responsible for his behaviors either good or bad because he has free will to decide what to do or don’t versus he has no moral responsibility for his behaviors because every act is pre-determined by his brain beyond his conscious control is definitely one of the controversial questions of today raised by psychologists, philosophers, neurologists and many others. According to the deterministic idea, everything happening is really the only thing that could happen in that circumstances and could be predicted while the idea of free will supports we somehow have a choice to decide on our acts, that we are self-determined and this is what makes us different from machines as humans. By taking the course material presented to us into consideration, I believe in compatibilism. Most of the time we do what our brain, nature and nurture lets us do and we do what is expected but when necessary we also have the ability to cancel the command given by it, which is referred as “free won’t.”