Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism Do we really have free will? That is a question that has been debated for many, many centuries. In this essay, I will describe the three different viewpoints of determinism, compatibillism, and libertarianism so that the comparisons and contrasts may be seen. In addition to that, I will point out at least one strength and weakness of each of these topics. Finally, I will state which viewpoint I agree with and give my reasons why.
Our bodies may be governed by the laws of physics, but we still make choices of our own freewill. God is an all knowing God, but his knowing our choices in advance does not prohibit or even change our ability to make them. God is bound by rules he set in place, he gave us our free will and cannot take that away. With that decision He knew a world would have to exist with good and evil. Some rare instances may occur where free will is altered, such is the case with mental illnesses, where the victim is no longer in control of his or her actions, but in other cases such as abuse or brainwashing, the victim still exercises his or her free will to choose his or her own
The three postulates namely freedom, God and Immortality though can’t be theoretically proven, is incorporated into the already coherent and meaningful ethical structure of Kant to give more practicability to his ethical theory taking into account the fact that man is not a purely rational being but a creature haunted by inclinations. Freedom, God and Immortality, the three postulates are not theoretical dogmas but are presuppositions having necessary practical reference. The introduction of postulate in Kant’s philosophy can be considered as an attempt to limit the theoretical and extend the practical so as to make them stand together. God as postulate by Kant is not the God of religion. This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason.
Name Tutor Course title Date Free will: compatibilism. Free Will in philosophy refers to a particular kind of capacity of agents to choose or decide on a course of action from a variety of alternatives. The notion of free will has received a lot of attention in philosophy. Before we can examine it, however, we must understand some basic terminology. We will stand by understanding the concept of determinism.
It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws. They may be religious or like Kantian ethics based on God and the existence of natural law. In general there tends to be a consensus that Absolutism comes in three distinct types. Platonic Idealism is the first significant example of absolutist theory. This theory is referred to as the theory of forms, the forms are eternal constants which give meaning to the world.
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.
Does Oedipus control his actions, or are they predetermined by the gods? It is this question that puts forth another question unanswered: Is it fate or free will that lies at the heart of the Oedipus myth? Fate and free will are both present in the Oedipus Rex story and Sophocles expresses these ideas through imagery, irony, and many other literary works. According to Peter Voss in the article titled The Nature of Free Will, he believes that free will allows people of society to have control over their choices, and be responsible for them as well. But, we must be able to make these choices with awareness and understanding(Voss, “The Nature of Freewill”).
Freud explained that the mind was divided into three areas; the ‘ID’ where our base instincts are such as desire and appetite, the ‘Ego’ a part of our mind that is shaped by external influences and the ‘Superego’ a part of the ego that is shaped by the influences that have affected our development such as parents and teachers. He believed that our conscience was the result of our social conditioning or socialisation thus all moral values are subjective. However, the argument for God is also largely supported, although the argument does not suggest that there must be a God, but rather that God is needed for morality to achieve its end. Cardinal Newman agreed with Kant that the existence of
The idea of Determinism is explored by many philosophers in the construction of arguments against free-will, morality, and liberty. Determinism is a philosophy that claims that all things are causally related to each other and there is a necessity behind every event that occurs and while Determinism as a term wasn’t coined as a term until the 19th century, David Hume explored these major concepts in his Enquiry, delving into the roots of humanity and questioning the truth of human freedom.1 In particular his exploration into human understanding leads him to conclude that there is no effect without a cause and liberty when opposed to necessity cannot universally exist.2 Hume’s discovery, the Causal Maxim, and is generally accepted among philosophers, though it is not enough in and of itself to prove that he fits the mold of a determinist. However, by delving further into his various arguments, I will prove that Hume’s philosophy, mainly the denial of induction and support of causation, follows the discreet specifications of Determinism. Essential to the understanding of Hume’s philosophy is his idea of the universal necessity of connection between cause and effect, though he aptly admits that this connection is unobservable and denies that humans can ever have a true understanding of cause and effect.3 To explain such a broad claim Hume addresses a situation in which causality could prove troublesome by illustrating that God, through an immense causality chain, could be the true author of crime and immorality. This approach at explaining the connection between human criminality and God is deterministic, though Hume quickly halts this explication by admitting that it is outside of the bounds of human reason to understand the will of God.4 Regardless of the incompletion of what would likely turn to the metaphysical side of philosophy, Hume readily admits that it is
Not only are the events around humans out of their control, their very thoughts and feelings are determined separately from any free will that they might possess. The concept of determinism must be separated from pre-determinism, a religious concept that states that the entire past and future was determined during the universe’s birth. Some people believe that one cause (usually thought to be God) was the start of a chain of events, where each link is in turn the cause for the next events in said chain. Some believe that the mind and body have different circumstances when it comes to determinism of the mind and determinism of the body. This is called mind/body dualism (The History of the Free Will Problem).