Free Will Vs Determinism Argument

Justly or unjustly, humans live by a code of moral responsibility. We are deemed responsible for the actions we commit, and are given consequences for those actions. However, the nature of the free will vs. determinism argument can easily bring such a construct into question. In a philosophical sense, free will is defined as follows: a real capacity to choose among courses of action, allowing us to control and direct our actions in ways that reflect our deliberate choice or will. Conversely, determinism is defined as follows: All of our actions are decided in the sense that the current situation is the necessary result of past states of affairs plus all physical laws. Regardless of which one I choose to support, I’d argue that I do not believe …show more content…
Allow me to explain: Even if determinism in it’s purest form was true, that doesn’t change the fact that morality still exists. If determinism is the law of the universe, all past events and physical laws have lead to the creation of moral law within human society. This means that regardless of whether or not someone’s actions are of their own volition, or predetermined, they can be judged based on what humans deem morally just. For example, in the United States (and almost every other country with a morally based legal system), a lack of criminal intent does not always prevent a prosecution. A more specific example of this is in the case of a man named Matthew Cordle. Cordle had been driving while intoxicated, when he crashed into another car and killed the person in that car. According to Dahl (2013), “Fais sentenced Cordle to six months for driving under the influence of alcohol and six years for aggravated vehicular homicide.” This a prime example of moral responsibility being present, despite the fact that you can argue Cordle did not have free will over his actions. This is just one example of definitive proof that moral responsibility can exist without free …show more content…
I gave a few examples of this being the case, but their are many more. In conclusion, if someone has free will, they are responsible for their actions because they chose them, while if someone does not have free will, they are responsible for their actions because humans have deemed it morally necessary for them to be. Even if determinism is the law of the land, that would mean that all past events and physical laws have lead to a reality where humans are deemed morally responsible for their actions. Thus, I deduce that free will is not a necessary factor in determining whether or not someone retains moral