In “Of the System of Man’s Free Agency” D’Holbach explains his argument that human action is determined by the laws of nature. He proposes that humans are part of the natural world and therefore governed by necessary laws, so they have no free will. On this essay I will argue that D’Holbach’s argument on motive is not a good one; I will explain the argument, present why do I think the argument fails and consider ways to defend the argument from my own attack.
D’Holbach’s Argument
D’Holbach concedes that “To be undeceived on the system of his free agency, man has simply to recur to the motive by which his will is determined; he will always find this motive is out of his own control. It is said: that in consequence of an idea to which the mind gives birth, man acts freely if he encounters no obstacle”. This argument means to show that humans have no free will since their actions are not determined by their motives. Humans will is …show more content…
This is because not all actions are born out of a motive. There are actions that can be said to be entirely without motive, the action might be random. For example, the act of drumming the fingers on a table is done by many individuals, this act seems random since it’s source cannot be pinpointed. A person might just be doing another shore and without notice start drumming their fingers on a surface, an act born out of no motive.
Another objection to the argument can be shown by attacking the third premise. An action might not be determined by only a single motive. In many instances when trying to pick between two options we weight out the pros and cons of each options and then make a decision. Meaning that in order to determine our actions we might consider more than one motive. So, an action can be born out of a conjunction of motives rather than by only one. Therefore, it can be said that the third premise
D’Holbach’s Argument
D’Holbach concedes that “To be undeceived on the system of his free agency, man has simply to recur to the motive by which his will is determined; he will always find this motive is out of his own control. It is said: that in consequence of an idea to which the mind gives birth, man acts freely if he encounters no obstacle”. This argument means to show that humans have no free will since their actions are not determined by their motives. Humans will is …show more content…
This is because not all actions are born out of a motive. There are actions that can be said to be entirely without motive, the action might be random. For example, the act of drumming the fingers on a table is done by many individuals, this act seems random since it’s source cannot be pinpointed. A person might just be doing another shore and without notice start drumming their fingers on a surface, an act born out of no motive.
Another objection to the argument can be shown by attacking the third premise. An action might not be determined by only a single motive. In many instances when trying to pick between two options we weight out the pros and cons of each options and then make a decision. Meaning that in order to determine our actions we might consider more than one motive. So, an action can be born out of a conjunction of motives rather than by only one. Therefore, it can be said that the third premise