Free Will vs. Determinism sample essay

The answer to the question “Is the act of writing this essay a free and responsible action?” depends primarily on the theory to which the responder would stick. If this theory is libertarianism, then the argument would be too naive, stating that it is only his or her free will that caused the event. In case the writer prefers hard determinism theory, the answer would be too pessimistic, but objective, logical, and scientific, but not fully true, because even the term person implies that we all have personalities, and therefore freedom of choice. Therefore, the correct answer to the question could be found in the soft determinism theory, allowing circumstances and freedom of choice coexist comfortably and cause events together.

“Is the act of writing this essay a free and responsible action?” The first answer that comes to mind is “no.” it is not a free and responsible action because it was not me who decided to write it. As a matter of fact, I would not have to do any research or write any essays if I had not been studying. I therefore have to write it, and this event is not the act of free will, but has a clear definite cause: the assignment given by the professor. However, if I wanted to, I would drop my class, or simply neglect school, and then I would not have to write or de anything at all. This fact is surely to, because I as a person have a character and decide what to do and what not to do utilizing my free will. Thus, I am writing this essay because I have decided to go study and take the course. So this fact, on the other hand, means that the act of writing the essay is the consequence of my free will. Not quite, I suppose; I cannot stick to either point one, which is driven by hard determinism, or point two, which in turn is driven by libertarianism. The case is not “white” or “black,” I believe. The truth must be in the third point, in the golden mean, the soft determinism doctrine. I accept compatibilism because I believe it makes much more sense to me, plus this particular situation only bolsters the theory.

Soft determinism implies that a person’s free will and determinism can harmoniously coexist (Ayer, 1996). Just like in the example above, the act of writing this essay is not only caused by the assignment given by the professor. If the professor handed out the assignment does not necessarily mean that it has to be written. The paper has to be written as long as the student wants to pass the course and continue his or her education. So when I am writing the essay, this means I do want to continue my education and pass the course. The two main causes of this event are 1) the assignment given by the professor in order to pass the course, and b) the desire of the student to pass the course. Of course, future prosperity and well-being and many other factors underlie student’s desire, but the fact remains: the student does want to pass the course, therefore it depends on his or her free decision to write the essay or not to write. Getting back to soft determinism term, we see that this event is a perfect example of soft determinism: the student’s free will and determinism (which in this case is professors assignment) harmoniously coexist and both serve as a cause of this event.

I strongly agree with the idea of compatibilism. Moreover, I would try to prove and argue for it. In philosophical terms, compatibilism means the possibility of the coexistence of determinism and free will (Stace, 1999). As we can see from the example above, this possibility does exist and you have become a witness of it. In general, soft determinism flows from compatibilism, and they are very similar in their concepts.

Thus far, I have stated that the act of writing this essay is both the act of free will and the cause (i.e. the assignment), having chosen the soft determinism model. Critics, however, might find the above assertions false partially or completely. Determinists would probably claim that my desire to study is only a separate event that also has consecutive causes. While libertarians would defend the position that professor’s assignment did not play a significant role in the actualization of writing the essay. Whatever counter-arguments may arise in the readers’ minds, I am all ready to rebut them, and prove that my opinion makes sense and is the only correct way to describe the motivation or the causes of the event (writing the essay).

Hard determinism is too a negative philosophical term, which resembles democracy, and communism to me. It argues that generally there is no such thing as free will (Honderich, 2002). This assertion means that everything that a person does has a particular cause (simple or compound). The more confusing statement is that every cause is, in turn, an event also, which means that it has its cause too. This means that the perpetual chain will go on and on. Consequently, if we start to inspect one event, we will come to the “first” initial cause that caused all the events on the planet. A logical question would be, “well, what caused this first cause then?” This way, there is no end in this chain of causes.

“Every event has a cause; every cause is also an event; human behavior is an event; thus, all human behavior is a cause; if an event is caused, it is not free; thus, no human behavior is free, and free will does not exist” (Blatchford, 1998). The theory does not make any sense at all. Not to mention the fact that it deprives mankind to make free decisions and express free will, out of theses of the theory follows the fact that everything was caused by some great major initial event. But this event cannot be first and initial because the theory claims that every event has a cause, therefore the “first” event does not exist; the chain of events and causes is infinite.

Therefore, hard determinism is not a position to stick to. And even though zealots of the theory can claim that “your desire to study is also an event, which is caused by the desire to receive knowledge, which, in turn, caused by desire to realize that knowledge and prosper, which is caused by...” I think there is a minor sense in it, but this minor part is not enough to buy the entire theory. Does a stinky, miserable hobo want to be one? Did he drop the class in school in order to acquire the status of a homeless nothing?

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is a complete opposite of hard determinism. The entire concept of libertarianism is held on the idea that there is no such thing as determinism. The three primary ideas of libertarianism are a) determinism and free will cannot coexist, b) all humans do possess free will, and last but not least, c) determinism is false (Answers). Therefore, the inference of the three statements is that everything that people do they do because of the free will. Also, provided that determinism is a false doctrine, then the entire cause and event theory is false too. Does the rejection of determinism theory mean that events have no causes? Surely, not. If it were so, it would have been a complete chaos and nothing would be in order. Therefore, libertarians believe that all human actions are caused by the agent’s will, and that the agent him/herself builds the chain of causes and events. Libertarians also believe that an event cannot be determined by the physical circumstance. They believe that this preceding event, which serves as a cause, cannot influence (or cause) some particular event 100% sure. Rather they believe that a preceding cause can generate probabilities of consecutive actions. This way, I had a sixty-to-forty probability: the probability that I would write the paper is 60 percent, and the probability that would not is 40 percent. Thus, libertarianism claims that everything is based on the agent’s free will, and at the same time leaves the agent options and probabilities. But what if we ponder over those options and probabilities. Let us assume the agent picks one of the options; we know that he or she had done that only basing on free will. If this person is asked a simple question, “why did you do this, and not that?” we can easily see that there is determinism involved in the agent’s decision or preference. Therefore, I object the libertarian position because along with other doubtful statements, the theory fails to explain “why an agent makes the choice he or she does - any explanation of the choice (beyond the probabilistic one) would seem to make it determined” (Answers).

Yes, I have decided to write the essay, and to submit it and pass the course, but my decision was not only based by my free will, but also the physical circumstances encompassing and preceding my decision. Libertarianism does not apply to this particular situation, and does not prove to be a trustworthy theory on the whole.

Having discussed the three main conflicting theories of determinism and free will, we can see that there is not truth on either end of the line. As stated earlier in the paper, “it is not either black or white.” The truth can be found in the soft determinism, the golden mean, which identifies with reality the most. Throughout history, people have always sought freedom, and hard determinism meanly deprives people their ability to act freely and follow internal call of will. The natural response is obvious. Libertarians on the other hand, claim that people are god-like, omnipotent beings, who are completely free in their choice, but at the same time they cannot explain the causes of a particular decision. Surely, free will is compatible with determinism, and the act of writing this paper is a perfect example. The desire to express my thoughts and to pass the course harmoniously coexist with the necessity to complete the assignment given by the professor. If not, then are people truly that free? Or, is there really a common determinant in the universe? Why then there is no order in universe and in molecules? And why are people sometimes constrained in their options?

Bibliography

1. Honderich, Ted. 2002 "S Defence of Hard Determinism, from How Free Are You?" in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 11th 2002 Wadsworth.

2. Ayer, A.J. 1996 "Freedom and Necessity" In Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 1996 California: Wadsworth

3. Stace, Walter T. "The Problem of Free Will from Religion and the Modern Mind" in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 1999 Wadsworth

4. Frankfurt, Harry 1999 "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility" in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 10h ed. 1999 Wadsworth.

5. Blatchford. Introduction to Philosophy. “Hard Determinism”. 1998. From Longview Community College. Website http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/intro/blatchford.htm

6. Libertarianism. From Answers.com Website http://www.answers.com/topic/libertarianism-philosophy Accessed March 29 2005
Order custom essay now!