If all my actions, my beliefs and my desires are determined by preceding conditions, how can I ever be free? This is the conflict presented by traditional theories of determinism and freewill. But analysis of such a concept of freewill shows it be incoherent. In this case, we must either reject the thesis that we have freewill, or reformulate our concept of freewill so that it is coherent. I will argue that such a reformulation is not only compatible with determinism but also necessary, if we are to maintain that we have any kind of freewill.
With this thought in mind, how could I possibly acclaim the idea of freedom of choice to myself? Many questions have been brought up in regards to this topic. According to Compatibilists, we do possess the idea of free will. Compatibilists try and develop a certain sense of the word free in order to help better associate free will with determinism. Even though determinism is the belief that human action and many other things are ultimately determined by certain external factors not related to your will.
The first one is claiming that every single action is caused by a chain of events, therefore there is no free will at all, just events caused by a precedent one and causing another one to happen. This is then considered to be an “incompatibilist” point of view, because it considers the existence of free will incompatible with the precedent causal determinism. Another “incompatibilist” point of view is the “libertarianism” one, which affirms that there is no such thing as a causal determinism, but everything is just based upon free will. The last current of thought is the “soft determinism”, which claims that even though there is a chain of events, this doesn’t deny free will. To support this theory, there is Saint Augustine’s idea that even thought the result of an action is fixed, this can still be guided by free will; William James is then proposing that our actions are not completely determined.
Incompatibilists have two arguments. One is based around the idea that in order to have free will you must have alternative options and a choice when considering your actions. The other, which emphasises the notion that free will is incompatible with determinism, suggests that if all events are part of a chain of cause and effect, our original actions cannot be truly significant and as a result they cannot be in our control or due to our free will. The philosopher Peter van Inwagen was extremely influential when providing evidence for this argument and introduced “The Consequence Argument”. This view suggests that "if determinism is true, then our acts
It then follows that an agent does not act freely, has no free will, and is therefore never morally responsible for its actions. Though the logic of this seems feasible, I argue that the consequences of hard determinism are unacceptable, as all performed actions are not fully pre-determined. I posit that determinism is only true insofar that actions are influenced by their pre-determined conditions. Rather than P1 inescapably leading to P2, it is more intuitive that the consequences of P1 influence an agent to perform a certain action. Further, I posit that there are an infinite number of possible actions to be taken as a result of P1 as determined by the agent itself.
The claim says “able to act upon my decisions”. It is not “my” decision if it was the chip that made the decision. Therefore, the claim still stands because if there were no influences such as the chip, the decisions you make are yours which in turn means the actions you take are free. Harry Frankfurt argues that desires come in order. First-order desires are desires to act in certain ways.
Without freedom it is impossible to make moral choices  In order to assess the claim that without freedom it is impossible to make moral choices, one must first consider the approaches to the concept of free will and determinism whether we in fact possess free moral choice at all. Secular stances towards free will and determinism are; hard determinism, libertarianism and soft determinism. Free will is the notion in regards to morality. That we have the ability to act upon our volition without being coerced into acting in a certain way then we can say we are to be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy. Free will does not mean complete freedom as this is a concept that does not exist in reality.
FREE WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM Does behaviour result from forces over which we have no control? Or do we have free choice to behave as we wish? Do we really choose our actions? Free Will versus Determinism is one of the major debates within psychology and also within philosophy. Free will What is freewill?
Rauch also states that though prejudice may be misguided belief, there is no need to choose sides and that is the beauty of intellectual pluralism. Rauch’s essay states that knowledge is what leads to pluralism and more knowledge is not necessarily a good thing. By saying, “We cannot know in advance or for sure which belief is prejudice and which is truth, but to advanced knowledge we don’t need to know”, (393), he supports his idea. But in order to gain intellect on anything, you have to have knowledge. At the end of the day, we survive on basic knowledge.
There are obvious flaws in this idea but an explanation that Berkeley gives clears it up a little. He explained that even though we can not see space or distance, we know it exists from past experiences. Rationalists such as Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, and Baruch Spinoza argue that our senses are not the ultimate source for knowledge since what we percieve may be decieving. Rationalism is the view that all ideas come from knowledge and reason and can be deduced. On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed.