Freedom Vs. Causality : The Argument Of Freedom Versus Causality

787 Words Sep 21st, 2016 4 Pages
Freedom vs Causality In the argument of freedom vs. causality, causality follows the laws of nature, which implies that nothing happens without cause, in other words meaning, life as we know it is just one big cycle of cause and effect. Freedom, on the other hand, allows for spontaneity, meaning not every effect has a prior cause, thus allowing for new events to occur. So, the argument, or rather question, is: which one of these is true…freedom, or causality? With freedom comes free will, a mind, and a soul. With causality, comes a body (made up of matter) reacting to the matter (e.g. trees, buildings, other bodies, etc.) surrounding it, actions that are not our own, and a fate that is predetermined. With freedom, we belong to ourselves, and with causality, we belong to the universe. And while there is no definite answer to this argument/question, there are very interesting theories that might help one decide which side of the spectrum they fall on. For the sake of this paper, though, I will be agreeing with Kant that there is such a thing as freedom, and that causality is false (219). To make my case I will be using the evolution vs. creation debate to argue that causality in itself is a contradiction.
The argument against causality is that if everything is an effect of some one cause, then what is the prior cause of the immediate cause? A great example of this question would be the evolution vs. creation debate. If we are to agree that everything has a cause and an…

Related Documents