Do we have Free Will? In this essay I will discuss the three positions of Free Will, Libertarianism, Soft Determinism and Hard Determinism. Libertarianism states that free will exists. Robert Kane (2011:24) states: Soft determinists are compatibilists who insist that determinism does not undermine any free will or responsibility worth having, whereas hard determinists are incompatibilists who take a harder line: Since determinism is true, free will does not exist (Kane, 2011:24). Libertarianism is the position I wish to defend, and thus will argue that, indeed, we do have free will.
Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined. Soft determinists believe that some human actions are determined, but we still have moral responsibility. Hard determinism is the view that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. “Everything is planned, connected, limited.” Voltaire, 1764. This demonstrates that hard determinism is a concept that has been around for centuries.
Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct.
McCarthy uses religous rhetoric in Bells descriptions of Chigure. By calling him a ‘prohphet of destruction’ it is Bells way of articulating something that he can not understand. Throughout the novel we come to realise that Bell infact has no religious faith. Therefore Chigurh is not a transendent force of evil, he is human and in control of his own choices. What is really being articulated is that ‘we are living in a time of change’ modern society is a society based on the freedom to choose our actions as they are no longer ordaned by a religon.
‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’. The third imperative says that we as humans should all live moral lives; we cannot depend on anyone or anything else. "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." An important strength of Kant’s ethical system is that Kant does not specifically set any deontological rules. Kant talks about the Summon Bonum, ‘’the real object of our will’’, he says that we cannot achieve this without our own morality entering into the equation for making decisions.
This is not a value we see in Marcus Aurelius’ writing here. He clearly thinks his views on nature and Reason represent the logical culmination of the human mind. As technology continues to “shrink” our world, it is important that we keep an open mind and avoid thinking that any group has the perfect
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.
What I believe that the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own conscious. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand. Firstly, I believe that independence can not be the definition of what your government says is independent. If you go by what the government says is independent than why not go by Chinas definition of independence, or by the communists party’s definition of independence. If you are being governed than you are not truly independent.
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.
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.