Free Will Argument

Determinism allows for many causes, but it doesn’t permit the single possibility that something happens as a result of no cause, (Daniel). Incompatibilism is a philosophical thesis about how relevant determinism actually is to free will. It questions the truth of determinism rules out the existence of free will. An incompatibilist would believe that if determinism turned out to be true, then it must be true that we don’t have free will, and that we never had it to begin with. Soft Determinism is a view that holds that determinism and free will coexist in a person.

However, Descartes himself is wrong about his claims. When Descartes mentions that everything must come from something follows the fact that every effect has a cause (pg. 73), Descartes is assuming that everything is an effect. Without any justification that everything is an effect, we cannot say that everything comes from something follows from the fact that every effect has a cause. Furthermore, the principle cannot come from Descartes’ claim that everything comes from something because that claim would not be able to pass the dream doubt.

In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick Chisholm has taken a libertarian approach on the issue of free will and determinism. Libertarians believe that humans have free will and make a distinction that free will and determinism are incompatible. Chisholm has the same opinion. On the problem of human freedom, Chisholm thinks that “Human beings are responsible agents; but this fact appears to conflict with a deterministic view of human action (the view that every event that is involved in an act is caused by some other event); and it also appears to conflict with an indeterministic view of human action (the view that the act, or some event that is essential to the act, is not caused at all).”(Page 3). He does not agree that determinism or indeterminism

To be able to have a genuinely rational theodicy we have to admit that just due to the fact that we do not like a specific belief, that does not make it untrue. The most popular theodicy is referred to as The Free Will Defense. The Free Will Defense maintains that God maximized the goodness within the world by means of creating free beings. If we are free, that means we have a choice to do evil things; a choice that a number of humans exercise. In order for free will to be authentic, God cannot place limits on our choices or intervene in any way.

The autonomy of will Kant had suggested a straight and demanding definition on what freedom is. Acting freely according our desire, our appetite is not freedom in a Kantian point of view. As mentioned above, Kant deny Bentham’s claim on pain and pleasure are our sovereign master since human had a rational capacity that distanced us and physical creatures that act merely according their appetites. This is what Kant called autonomy. Being autonomous, human are capable to act and choose freely according to the law we give ourselves.

The Causal Determinism theory argues against free will by saying that an event is caused by a causal condition that ensures its occurrence. If a causal condition ensures the occurrence of an event, then that event is unavoidable, which would also mean that all events are unavoidable. The theory then states that a person’s actions are events, therefore a person’s actions are unavoidable. The theory concludes that if a person’s actions are unavoidable, then they have no free will over them, which means that people do not have free will. Based on Hume’s theory of empiricism and critique of induction, the first premise of the Causal Determinist theory is not true, disproving the argument that humans do not have free will.

It appears to violate the law of causation: Every effect must have a cause; the same cause always produces the same effects. Free Will denies that it is a cause due to the effect of something else. Since a person 's choice is not an effect, we can assume that the law of causation is not relevant to free will. What is the relationship between the law of causation and free will? In a sense, causality is needed for free will to exist, because an essential part of free will is the idea that we cause our own actions.

We think that we are free but are we really free? No! We all are ruled by one thing or other either its religion or politicians or Prince. Different Philosophers on their different writings explains their different thoughts and different points. One of the philosophers explains how people’s passions and freedom are ruled by so called practices and is against the morals created by religion and political powers which limits and manipulates human to do what they want to do.

Clifford argues that all beliefs must be justified. In his writing, The Ethics of Belief, Clifford states that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe in anything upon insufficient evidence” (Clifford 5). Clifford means that it is morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. This can be a problem when one examines the very definition of belief. A belief is a thought, which may have a foundation in reality, but does not require it.

In this essay, I will argue from a compatibilist perspective arguing that free will does exist, and it is consistent with determinism. Compatibilism means that free will can exist with determinism [177]. Incompatibilism means that it is not possible for free will to exist with determinism [172]. Free will occurs when people’s actions come from their second order volition [184]. Second order desires requires you to first desire something, and to then have a desire about your first desire [184].