Free Will Vs Determinism

Decent Essays
The issue of Free will and Determinism arise from the terms themselves. Free will can be defined as: “agents that are strongly, and naturally, inclined to believe that what they do, it is of their own free will” (our actions have the motives that we (the agent) determined and want). Determinism, on the other hand, means to outlook every event, including choice and action as determined (i.e. completely caused or inevitable). However, determined means in this statement “causally determined” not fated. These two terms (determinism and fated) are not the same theories, fated means that events it will happen, however determinism is set in stone similar to predetermined events. The real problem derives from the motivation behind the two theories …show more content…
A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral …show more content…
In Denial, there are two premises. Denial of the first premise in which Soft Determinist David Hume maintains that determinism is true and correlates with free will and moral responsibility (i.e. meaning that freedom of choice is only valid in moral responsibility by personal motive, regardless of casual determination). Denial of the second premise derives from Libertarian Richard Taylor, who disagrees with determinism because human actions are “uncaused” and intelligible. He uses “uncaused” as a term referring to actions not caused by factors external to the agent (i.e. actions are done for a reason that derives from the agent). Thus according to Taylor make the agent morally responsible because an agent has an intention behind an action. Embracing the conclusion stems from Hard Determinist John Hospers, who “denies that conclusion is unacceptable because according to his theory choices are determined by character, values, goals, etc., in which are determined not by the agent but by factors external and beyond their control “ (The Philosophical Review, page

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Hard determinism arguing that life without free will is not bad, but, Accepting hard determinism is about inconceivable. It also argue that if people have freewill then, they do not have any moral responsibility and people were fully free to do anything. Nor is it clear that one could stop believing in free will (pg. 119-120). Whereas, libertarian is opposite to hard determinism and called indeterminism.…

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Name: Course: Title: Date: KANT’S GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS 1. Deontology is the view of the act to be moral or not moral from the action done. In deontology, the consequences that an action may impact to individuals are not considered but rather, the logic behind the action is determined. Consequences should not be used to justify the good in any action, “a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes” (Ross 33). Such action should arise from the duty, and law assigned to individuals by a system but not out of self-interest or the consequences.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Those who believe in this idea are called “hard” determinists, which they deem no one is responsible for their actions. However, the alternative to hard determinism is Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the act of believing humans are free from determinism and its forms. Libertarians believe that determinism and free will cannot be as one. Moreover, they believe freedom requires indeterminism.…

    • 1628 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In d’Holbach’s concept of free will, all is condensed to the physical brain and subject only to external influences rather than a soul, and consciousness. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a Dualist perspective to accept his stance on free will. Since d’Holbach views that there is no such thing as free will, a major concern of his argument is brought up being that if a persons’ actions are pre-determined and in order to fit with his proposition, it would not be morally correct to punish that individual for their actions. It would still be practical to isolate a harmful individual from society from d’Holbach’s view, except it would only be done for logical reasons and not for disciplinary…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Debunking Ethical Realism

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    FitzPatrick argues that such forces do not stand in the way of our grasping moral facts, and in doing so sketches his own view of realism. Foremost in his view is that we are capable of grasping moral truths. It is this grasp that debunking arguments contend is impossible, whether because our mental capacities and moral beliefs are distorted by evolution or by something else. But FitzPatrick says that evolution does not necessarily distort our capacity to grasp moral reality. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that we evolved mechanisms (such as cooperation) that both allow us to live longer and allow us to form a correct understanding of morality (17-18).…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cognitivism Analysis

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Kant trusted that profound quality did not lay on sense experience as Hume would recommend that moral sayings are determined through the earlier reason, as moral standards aren 't experimental like a utilitarianist would imply, however are vital truths for discerning creatures. Kant not just trusted that feelings had no part to play in the importance of "good" additionally in the route in which the "good" was realized. 'The cooperative attitude sparkles like a gem for its own purpose. ' - Kant. Kant trusted that indisputably the ethical good got from the absolute basic must be carried on simply out of 'obligation for obligations purpose, ' we ought to have no ulterior rationale to do good other than it being the best thing to do, feeling negates with this ethicalness.…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is different with libertarianism as determinism believes that we were already determined by certain causes outside of the power of will, while libertarianism believes in the theory that we are truly free in our choices. They also disagree on the idea of responsibility; determinist does not believe we can be responsible when we have no free will, while libertarians think differently. Although determinism and libertarianism have little to none in common, compatibilism can bring them together. The way that free will is compatible with determinism is called compatibilism. Although compatibilism and libertarianism are similar, they can also be quite different.…

    • 768 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this metaphysical view, moral responsibility cannot exist because agents are not causing their own actions, but they are caused by a natural chain of events. There is only one alternative course of action, so the agents’ behavior is expected. Agents cannot be blamed for actions they did not perform at will, which means criminals are not guilty of their crimes and hence should not be punished as society accustoms to: if agents “cannot be held morally responsible, what possible justification can there be for a system of law constructed on conceptions of blame and punishment?” (Grim 184). In case choices come with responsibility, free will is necessary to exist. In order to explain this phenomenon, determinists argue “cognitive science increasingly operates under the assumption that the mind is, or approximates, a deterministic system” (Evans 642).…

    • 1520 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Midterm, Regan and Midgley: Understanding the Reality of Moral Judgment According to Tom Regan in “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” moral judgment is irrelevant to the reality of moral truth. Though such judgments require understanding, justification, sound reasoning, real-world application, and independent verification, the mere existence of such judgments does not affect the truth of the matter. In “Moral Isolationism” Mary Midgley adopts a similar conclusion to Regan, though she does so through the argument of individual morality. Rather than supporting this argument of necessary moral judgment through a standpoint of universal morality—like Regan—, she refutes moral cultural relativism through a criticism of the popular practice of non-judgment (which she believes to be a moral judgment itself) and an encouragement of cultural understanding and respect. In this paper I will argue that though the conclusions on moral judgment that Regan and Midgley arrive at are compatible, their respective reasons for arriving at these conclusions are not harmonious.…

    • 1516 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant Vs Utilitarianism

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The Kantian would not be interested on the consequences while the utilitarian would first look at the consequences of an action and would therefore base the morality of an action on its consequences. Kant, in contrast, insists on doing something good simply because it is…

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays