Why The Punch Formed Without Free Will?

In this case, I would argue that the man who threw the punch acted without free will. I would argue this considering that, in this instance, it is stated that he did so “without thinking”, indicating that this was not a consciously chosen behavior, at least from the attacker’s perspective. A libertarian might counter my position by saying that there was no physical event to cause the action, therefore the attacker must have acted freely. I answer by acknowledging that there is no physical action to cause the attacker to throw a punch, but offer that perhaps emotions or cognitions could be said to be the cause. For example, if somehow a puppet string latched itself to the man’s arm who threw the punch, I believe that even libertarians would agree that a physical action caused the man to attack, thereby eliminating the possibility of free will. Considering this, I would offer that the emotions or cognitions introduced to the attacker at his young age would be just as much a cause as the puppet string.
Another objection might be raised arguing that emotions and cognitions are freely held and maintained by people, therefore the attacker would still have been acting on free will, since he freely chose to maintain an aggressive attitude or thought process. I refute this by arguing that even if it were possible to freely groom and sustain emotions or cognitions, this …show more content…
I reason that the attacker did not consciously choose to attack, but that it was determined by emotional and cognitive processes for him to attack. Continuing, I refute the objection that chosen emotions and thought processes (if they can be chosen) dictate the existence of free will. I respond by pointing out that it matters not how, why, or when emotions or cognitions are created or chosen, but that their physical properties can cause a determined act to follow. In close, this man did not act freely; his actions were