“Case Against Free Will” - Protocol Paper 4
RECALL: In “The Case against Free Will” by Rachels question; 1) Are we really responsible for what we do.; 2) Does “Free Will or Free Choice,” effect our behavior. Rachels claim “Since we are a part of nature, whatever happens inside us follows the laws of nature.”; 3) The case of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered a boy named Bobby Franks, is used as an example to support their claim; 4) Clarence Darrow, the defense lawyer for Leopold and Loeb, claimed “human character is shaped by an individual’s genes and environment.”; 5) Determination, The determinist system “To say that a system is deterministic means that everything that happens in it stems from prior causes.”; 6) Rachels “determinism …show more content…
Both then continue to talk about idea of free will vs. destiny in the choice of human life as a deterministic one. Deterministic meaning that everything happens as a result of previous cause. The Rachels argue that once the cause has happened, then the effects will follow. They go on to explain how the brain functions and how neurological actions cause have an effect of our mental state as well as the physical movements of the body. Both Rachels believe that humans are influenced about fifty percent by their lineage and the other half by social acceptances. However, they do not leave room for any free will in there and use several studies to back up their claims. The Milgram Experiment shows how humans, on certain conditions, will not act on their own will, but rather on what they are told to do. A study in Minnesota gathered together twins who were separated and lived in different social conditions. The Rachels continue on to claim that “freedom” is nothing more than just an illusion created by our own inexperience and because we are not conscious of the fundamental causes of our behavior, we assume that they are not …show more content…
Why do so many books or movies, talk about prophecies and destinies while we would rather have free will? Is free will compatible with determinism?
COMMENT: The concept of free will is a human one, and I mean that as in people are afraid that their destiny is not truly theirs at times. The future can be a product of what you chose to do. If the argument is that then you were preordained to do great, I would say no. There are numerous features that could have come about, but didn’t. Basically, I don’t find the evidence in the article enough to say “We don’t have free will”.
CONNECT: My connection towards free will is substantial, since I am allowed to make my own decisions throughout life. Things such as what school to go to, or who I should end up marrying are part of that free will. The belief between freewill and a pre-destined path in the grand scheme of things is found not only in one’s philosophy and religion, but the purpose I see for my actions, my choices, and overall my life’s overall
RECALL: In “The Case against Free Will” by Rachels question; 1) Are we really responsible for what we do.; 2) Does “Free Will or Free Choice,” effect our behavior. Rachels claim “Since we are a part of nature, whatever happens inside us follows the laws of nature.”; 3) The case of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered a boy named Bobby Franks, is used as an example to support their claim; 4) Clarence Darrow, the defense lawyer for Leopold and Loeb, claimed “human character is shaped by an individual’s genes and environment.”; 5) Determination, The determinist system “To say that a system is deterministic means that everything that happens in it stems from prior causes.”; 6) Rachels “determinism …show more content…
Both then continue to talk about idea of free will vs. destiny in the choice of human life as a deterministic one. Deterministic meaning that everything happens as a result of previous cause. The Rachels argue that once the cause has happened, then the effects will follow. They go on to explain how the brain functions and how neurological actions cause have an effect of our mental state as well as the physical movements of the body. Both Rachels believe that humans are influenced about fifty percent by their lineage and the other half by social acceptances. However, they do not leave room for any free will in there and use several studies to back up their claims. The Milgram Experiment shows how humans, on certain conditions, will not act on their own will, but rather on what they are told to do. A study in Minnesota gathered together twins who were separated and lived in different social conditions. The Rachels continue on to claim that “freedom” is nothing more than just an illusion created by our own inexperience and because we are not conscious of the fundamental causes of our behavior, we assume that they are not …show more content…
Why do so many books or movies, talk about prophecies and destinies while we would rather have free will? Is free will compatible with determinism?
COMMENT: The concept of free will is a human one, and I mean that as in people are afraid that their destiny is not truly theirs at times. The future can be a product of what you chose to do. If the argument is that then you were preordained to do great, I would say no. There are numerous features that could have come about, but didn’t. Basically, I don’t find the evidence in the article enough to say “We don’t have free will”.
CONNECT: My connection towards free will is substantial, since I am allowed to make my own decisions throughout life. Things such as what school to go to, or who I should end up marrying are part of that free will. The belief between freewill and a pre-destined path in the grand scheme of things is found not only in one’s philosophy and religion, but the purpose I see for my actions, my choices, and overall my life’s overall