Philosophers define free will
Philosophers define free will as the ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Free will is not only concerned with external conditions or fate, but also with humans' ability to be responsible for and authors of their own acts. Free will is an illusion formed by the human brain that allows it to choose freely from a set of possibilities without being influenced by external factors or fate. Determinism, on the other hand, is a belief that argues that all occurrences, including human actions, are decided by causes that are extrinsic to the will. Based on the systematic research conducted on free will and determinism, it is imperative to indicate that we have free will because this about the freedom of human being to make choices which make more sense when compared to the concept causal and effects. It could either be political freedom, religion freedom among others exercised at any time during the lifetime not only at that time when one is in danger (Jane, 2013).
Free will objects the law of causality
Free will objects the law of causality of which I agree with since every choice has its own effect and hence a different outcome. There is no way that I make a choice to commit suicide and follow the necessary steps then get a different outcome. This means that every choice you make as a human being has consequence positively correlated with your choice. Unlike in deterministic society where they believe in a preconditioned set of outcomes without giving out freedom to make a choice (Jane, 2013).
Also, it appears that human have various abilities and capacity
Also, it appears that human have various abilities and capacity which means it makes sense to apply specific terms, for instance, 'responsibility' and 'accountability.' We appear to be morally responsible for the actions we take. As such, the call for one major question, how can one hold another responsible for their action unless the person has free will to choose what to do? This means that if humans are complete determined in their actions as determined by the surrounding, they have no real choice in a matter and because of this we cannot be held responsible for our actions (Jane, 2013). However, people are held responsible for their actions which imply they have free will to do something. At the same time, the association of free will and moral responsibility is not deeply intuitive and logically important. In particular, this is because denying this relationship result in incoherence. As such, the theory of determinism is greatly flawed. For example, if someone assert something like God ordain Satan to do evil in a way that makes Him remain morally holy, the individuals must be holding something beyond the counter-intuitive (Van Inwagen, 2012).
Also, there is the simple fact of observation
Also, there is the simple fact of observation which means human observer to choose freely. This is important when it comes to making a choice on what to see and to hear, and you don not have to make a simple illusion since you have seen. In other words, there no concrete reason to think that observations are illusory because one can hear others, for instance, scientists declare real science rest on observation (Searle, 2013). From the observations, we can make our theories fit the observed facts unlike in the deterministic view where they believe that the facts fit the theory.
Further, it is imperative to indicate that Determinism is self-refuting
Further, it is imperative to indicate that Determinism is self-refuting because if free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, then it means that the ultimate cause of why individuals believe that free will is an illusion is that they were predestined to do that. However, it is difficult to see how a belief can be considered false or true when it is predetermined. It is wrong to think that things happened because they are supposed to, for example, one cannot make an assumption that the falling snow is predetermined to be so (Searle, 2013).
Argument against Free will
Argument against Free will
The existence of free will is often objected from the law of causality. Opponents contend that it appears to violate the theory that every effect should have a cause that always produces the same impact (Bryan, 2013). Determinists hold that if human thoughts do not have a cause, they what one is simply saying is that they begin to exist with a cause which without would lead to random fluctuations, and it would mean that it would be a coincidence these two aspects have a relationship. However, determinism fails to recognize that free choice is an effect of anything else. A choice is not an impact which makes the law of causality irrelevant (Bryan, 2013). Further, the law determinists contend that every change should have a cause. This cause a major conflict to the notion of free will because this is not always the case as people can observe change, for instance, as they wake up. Therefore, determinism does not lay a good ground in which a person can discard the idea of observation in favor of a formulation of causality.
Also, opponents may argue that there is not the relationship between free will and causality
Also, opponents may argue that there is not the relationship between free will and causality. What they do not recognize is that causality is necessary for free will. More specifically, this is because it is a fundamental part of free will because an individual has to cause their action (Roy, 2015). Therefore, determinists should understand the distinction that exists between choices and actions. Free will is the effect of actions that occur when people make choices. Additionally, someone might argue that that free will does not necessary have to include moral responsibility is left out of the consideration. However, it is imperative to note that this is a fallacious way of reasoning. It is critical for determinists to understand that free will is closely related moral responsibility because this intuition is significantly strong is fact embedded in most countries' laws as it forms the basis of punishment for crimes committed (Roy, 2015).
Determinists believe in skepticism
Determinists believe in skepticism. However, this is the denial of the possibility of justified true belief which makes determinism appear false. According to John Searle no matter how free will is criticized, he said he would continue to believe in it. This shows that free will is the way to go since Searle had a choice to change his mind, but he decided to stand with free will. From the thought experiment showing freedom of will, it's very evident that a prediction is derived perfectly from the full knowledge of the entire body micro-particles which can only be facilitated by free minds (Van Inwagen, 2012).
Conclusion
Conclusion
Free will is more than any other attribute possessed by a human being, and thus, the denial of free will means the demeaning, devalue and dehumanization of a human being. Political freedom is important to every human being hence embracing free will simply mean respecting our values as human beings. It has been crucial to show that people have free will to choice. For instance, they choose most of the bodily movements and mental processes, for example, whether they will think and what about. People have free will because this offers them freedom to make choices which are not restricted. The theory of determinism is flawed because the contenders think there are preconditioned set of outcomes without giving out freedom to make a choice. Also, it has been identified that humans have free will which is embedded in moral responsibility and accountability. This means that if humans are complete determined in their actions as determined by the surrounding, they have no real choice in a matter and because of this we cannot be held responsible for our actions. The arguments that can be made over the existence of free will regard the law of causality. Opponents may hold that free will violate theory but fail to recognize that free choice is an effect of anything else. They can also assert that there is not a connection between free will and causality which means they do not take into account that causality is important for free will.
References
Bryan, C., (2013). Some arguments for the existence of free will and some objection answered. Retrieved from http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn046.pdf
Jane, C., (2013). Yes, free will is real, and it exists for a reason. Retrieved from http://io9.gizmodo.com/yes-free-will-is-real-and-it-exists-for-a-reason-1391727322
Roy, F., (2015). Do you have free will? Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will_mean_and_how_did_it_evolve.html
Searle, J. R. (2013). Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on free will, language, and political power. Columbia University Press.
Van Inwagen, P. (2012). The incompatibility of free will and determinism. Philosophical Studies, 27(3), 185-199.
