I believe a majority of the people in this world have some sort of consensus to what free will is and that is the ability to make choices. To my beliefs, free will is the sense in which individuals can consciously think to themselves on what they want to do, whether that is getting the fish instead of chicken for dinner or deciding to run for president. Even though we have the option to always make the right decision, we often make the wrong one, this agrees on the principle that we do not have free will, because if we did have ability to make our own choices, we would always make the right one. The is that free will cannot be simplified down to a single absolute definition because of this age we don’t entirely know why or how we make these
…show more content…
Free will cannot be simplified into a single definition, but can be sort of generalized as being able to make choices. It seems that there is more evidence to support having free will then against it. Individuals have the choice of whether they want to do one thing or another. There are people who believe in determinism, which is stated as having a fixed future and that everything is predetermined. Free will and determinism are (interconnected) because you can either be a soft determinist which are people who believe that free choice and determinism can be compatible with each other, or you can be a hard determinist, which is someone who believes that determinism and free choice are not compatible at all. These two perspectives have been battled between each other for a while with evidence supporting both sides. However, with free will, you cannot deny that we have it because you cannot disapprove it, even with determinism you can be a soft determinist believing that free choice and determinism can be compatible. Most people would believe that we have free will even being a soft determinist. Schopenhauer made an argument or more so a joke towards free will, but in his own argument he commits numerous flaws, comparing a product of nature to a conscious living being, hasty generalization fallacy, and creating the argument based on his own free will. He did not create a strong argument against free
Free will cannot be simplified into a single definition, but can be sort of generalized as being able to make choices. It seems that there is more evidence to support having free will then against it. Individuals have the choice of whether they want to do one thing or another. There are people who believe in determinism, which is stated as having a fixed future and that everything is predetermined. Free will and determinism are (interconnected) because you can either be a soft determinist which are people who believe that free choice and determinism can be compatible with each other, or you can be a hard determinist, which is someone who believes that determinism and free choice are not compatible at all. These two perspectives have been battled between each other for a while with evidence supporting both sides. However, with free will, you cannot deny that we have it because you cannot disapprove it, even with determinism you can be a soft determinist believing that free choice and determinism can be compatible. Most people would believe that we have free will even being a soft determinist. Schopenhauer made an argument or more so a joke towards free will, but in his own argument he commits numerous flaws, comparing a product of nature to a conscious living being, hasty generalization fallacy, and creating the argument based on his own free will. He did not create a strong argument against free