If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
In this case, the cause would be social conditioning – Baroch Spinoza said that although we may think that we are free, we are not, we are merely aware of our actions. “In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to will this or that by a cause, which has been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on until infinity.” This emphasizes the fact that we are contingent beings, and that although we feel that we have options in life, the choices that we make are in the end determined my one single factor, which started a chain reaction creating the world we live in today. The surrounding and environment we are brought up into and therefore the upbringing and social conditioning we receive it determined. Our actions are due to how
“Free will is an illusion. What seems to be freely chosen behaviour is really the result go internal and external forces acting upon the individual” Discuss this view. Quite simply, the idea of free will is that individuals have complete control over their life and their destiny. Believers of free will are of the opinion that human behaviour is the result of choices which each individual makes for themselves; external factors do not influence behaviour in any way. In total opposition to this belief is determinism, the theory that all behaviour is pre-ordained and we cannot chose our destiny so to speak.
However, freedom also has its limitations it may not interfere with other privileges or rights. In order to maintain Jefferson’s philosophy on liberty, a compromise must be made between freedom of expression and censorship. Although people are promised by the Constitution a right to freedom of expression, there are certain boundaries which are never to be crossed. It is the responsibility of the government to preserve the law while supporting the people; for the U.S. democracy is run by consent of the people. A prime example of this controversial issue is the system of television ratings.
In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will. 1: Vargas View First of all, in order to understand the whole reading, Vargas defines what free will is. It is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate, which means that it is the power of an individual to decide or have his or her opinion on something. In the beginning of the reading, according to Vargas, many people including scientists have difficulties understanding free will. In fact, it is really hard for them to explain why “our current notion of free will is an
No one can decide what is right or wrong except yourself. You know inside whether something is right or wrong. And you should rely on that natural inhibition more than the supernatural advice. Someone can be a good person without being
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
'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.
B) Natural and positive law are different from each other. Natural Law is based on something that no one can see or really explain its more of a law based on a persons moral compass and not something that is written down in writing where as Positive Law is a law that a person can see; it is a law that those in power have written up and are sometimes based on a moral compass but in most cases not everyone’s moral compass, so sometimes the law does not make since to some people but never the less the people no they must follow the law or face the consequences of breaking that law. 3. Explain
Renee Ramirez Period 6 May 10, 2010 BNW Essay Have you ever imagined a world that was only controlled by stability and not freedom? Well in the book “Brave New World”, there civilization is controlled this way. With stability there is no way to be your own person and live your own life. However, with freedom you can be yourself and not be dictated around to live in one certain way. Freedom is more important than stability because stability is control and demanding and the freedom to feel, dream, and to be able to create your own life and be who you want to in a way gives you your own stability.