Analysis Of Paul Holbach's Argument For Hard Determinism

Humans think that we have free will, but how free are we actually. When you make a choice you think that it is free will. But really that was what you were supposed to choose all along. We all have a path that our lives will follow no matter what we do. Now are we still free? Some would say yes, because we are still given the choice in the first place. Others would say no because we can really only pick one thing and nothing else. Paul Holbach does not think we have free will. The basic summary of his argument is for hard determinism. Hard determinism is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist. Determinism says the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. Pereboom and Holbach are two of those philosophers.
His first part of his argument is that we humans have no control over our birth or physiology. We form habits mindlessly due to the influence of another and they are perpetually changing due to changes of life and environment. From the very start …show more content…
Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. Determinism makes sense to me, even if I don’t like the thought of it. However I think it is cruel and unusual to give us options when we have none just to make us humans feel comfortable. But at the same time it is nice to have some kind of illusion of free will. Even if we were always going to make that choice thinking we chose to do so is a comfort. I don’t feel like this makes our lives less meaningful. I think without complete free will, life can still be just as fulfilling and