Are free will and determinism compatible? Free will is definitely a debated subject that philosophers have debated for a very long time. Free will is the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined (www.plato.stanford.edu). Hard determinists believe that if our actions are determined, then it is not possible for us to have free will. Libertarians argue that our actions are not determined verifying that we have free will.
'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability.
The conflicting philosophical idea of “free will” is determinism, wherein supporters of this thesis believe that everything on earth (as well as the metaphysical) is predestined. For the proponents of metaphysical libertarianism, they believe that determinism is just a fiction of the mind, and that free will does exist (or to such a point). On the other hand, those who oppose this thought are called hard determinists, in which they claim that the idea of determinism is true and that people do not have free will. But of all the debates related to free will vs. determinsim, the argument on existence vs. essence is perhaps the most prevalent one. Essentialism, a philosophical thought that seems to favour the religious ones, believe that every phenomenon here on Earth follows a pattern and that the events (and the outcomes of it) are predictable.
We need to think about how patents play into the motivations of all participants, not just those who end up seeking a patent. Patent racing is not-yet-a developed theory of patent incentives. Given the historical evidence, if you are skeptical of the benefits of patent racing, you probably ought to be skeptical of the benefits of the patent system as a whole. The resulting disconnect is a problem not only for patent theory but for the design of the patent system, which seems to be based on assumptions about invention that are not borne out by
Determinism vs. Freewill Do we, human beings, have the ability to choose freely? Or are we powerless over what decisions we make in this life? Do we do everything we do out of necessities with no self-control or responsibility? I must refuse the notion that we do not control the choices we make in this life, but many great philosophers came to the conclusion that we don't, these philosophers all reached the conclusion that a person cannot choose freely. This theory is known as Determinism, the idea that all choices are made without freedom due to necessity and desire and is viewed as simply obeying the laws of nature.
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
In Einstein’s answer, Einstein clouds his own answer to the question, “Do scientists pray, and if so, what do they pray for?” by using scientific evidences and supporting both sides of the argument, therefore not stating a clear purpose (Einstein 10). Without stating a clear purpose, the audience cannot understand what the speaker intends to say, or his purpose. Einstein also does not create much Ethos, because he does not put himself at the same level as his audience. Einstein does have Logos, but he defends both sides of the argument, so one cannot take much of a side based on what he says. Finally, he has no Pathos, because he drones on like a robot, revealing no personal emotion whatsoever.
A scientific determinist will say that any choice we make is merely an illusion of free will. We see the choices we make as free will because of the inherent complexities involved with the mind. Although we do not fully grasp the complexities of the human brain, scientific determinism states that, knowing everything there is to know about the rules of the universe we would be able to determine what a person was going to do. On the other hand, free-willists believe that humans do in fact have free will. There is some amount of causal powers attributed to the brain that cannot be simply by analyzing the electromagnetic-fields and quarks in the brain.
Evolution should be taught as a scientific hypothesis. The fact is that most of the time it is just not presented in the proper context, it is taught as a theory without the proper presentation of other “theories”. A little background information as to why the question continues to cause such a stir. In general when we refer to the term "theory" we often mean something that is unproven or an educated guess. Prior to being educated properly we say, "It's just a theory."
There is a bit of the “do onto others” saying that applies with Kant’s reasoning and would be considered retributive. Bedau does not agree with Kant, due to his theory only working when dealing with a rational or sane killer and does not address all of the other complexities that can come into play. Bedau then looks at the utilitarian argument and finds that in the past there has not been a consensus between utilitarians on capital punishment. Finally, Bedau focuses on John Locke and his in-depth study of capital punishment. Bedau finds that Locke’s views are mainly based on the doctrine of natural rights that was mainly utilized in the 18th century.