Problem of Free Will - Term Paper Example

Problem of Free will Hobbes in explanation of free will remarked that “while he says this; if I be free to write this dis I have obtained the cause; I deny that to be true for it is enough to his freedom of writing that he had not written it unless he would himself” an action is voluntary if it is in accord the agent embraced desires and is not compelled by an external force. For example, one may will to move up and down the room or may will otherwise since options are within his control. An action is therefore originated if it is within the control of agent it does not have to be an agent of certain causal gents. Incompatibilists argue that one aspect of fundamental propositions that there is one common one idea, which is a free action of which an agent may be held morally responsible. Incompatibilist argue that an action is not voluntary and originated and reject any involvement of an external force in causation of such action. This means that an individual is responsible for their actions, and have the will to act without interference from an external force. As Hobbes expounds, this is senseless speech and erroneous reasoning that may lead to contention and sedition or contempt (Kow, 3). From Hobbes’ assertions, free will is an illusion and not a reality; determinism therefore best explains that which characterizes the lives and actions of individuals. Rickaby (2) argues that one of Hobbes assertions was great resistant and warning against rhetoric talks that may lead to erroneous reasoning considering free will. The quote “I can; if I will” was criticized by Hobbes as erroneous reasoning and that is not worthy to mislead individuals. The main issue is that free will is not a reality and life is determined by external forces that are responsible for causation of events. Nothing begins from itself but from an action of some other immediate agent without itself. When a man has the appetite to will or an appetite for something to which he immediately had no appetite for, the cause of the will is not the will itself but must be something else beyond his own control or in his disposition (Hederick, nd). Therefore, for the specific action, the will is not is not the cause of itself, but is caused by an external force outside the will, which makes the will possible in the individual. Voluntary actions or those actions that are considered as voluntary therefore have necessary causes and therefore are necessitated. This means that free will by itself as considered to be voluntary has to be necessitated by an external force that makes the individual to will; out of the will itself. The will is therefore determined. From this, it is clear that free will and compatibilism are not possible and as far as causation is required to necessitate events, determinism is the only possible; explanation that van be attached to actions in individuals. Human freedom and moral responsibility are not possible. Accepting the presence of human moral responsibility and freedom would require that humans have to be the last cause or the causation of all events and no external force is required in this process throughout their actions. Generally, one is not free to do anything or refrain from doing it but is a victim of circumstances where external causation forces make one to act in a certain way (Creel, 226). However Plato in his arguments on the nature of human being mainly explains the distinctiveness, human capacities and self conception as the main aspects that differentiate humans from animals. Many philosophers since Plato have held that the difference between animals and the human beings is having the rational part that makes humans to choose between bad and good (O’Connor, 2010). Largely according to Plato our rational nature include our ability to choose what ends we may consider to be desirable or evil in that pursuing some ends would bring about a pleasant end while others may bring unpleasant ends. Therefore, humans unlike animals have the ability or the will to choose between these two ends. In this Plato largely explains that humans are free to will to be responsible or be the causation of some events in their lives or actions that would trigger more causation in their lives. However Plato and other philosophers those have argued in this line of free will and men being the causation over look certain aspects. Largely man is a product of the environment, which he lives in. This means that one is shaped as per the environment in which they are brought up in, and has no control of the behavior to adopt or not. The behavior that one adopts is product of influence of the present circumstances on man. The body is capable of certain behaviors in that the body has specific endowments that are genetic and that dictates how a body or humans have to behave in their entire lives, as well as how would look like (Creel, 227). In addition the environmental factors and other predisposing factors are responsible for humans emitting certain types of behaviors rather than others, and this largely explains the differences between behaviors of individuals in different predisposing factors. This explains that man’s life corresponds to musical instruments such as a guitar that produces certain sounds due to the structure of the instrument and materials from which the instrument is made from. Man cannot will to take up certain behaviors or characters, and these are as a result of endowments genetically compounded by the predisposing factors that shape these behaviors. It would be wrong to consider man as free in willing to take these characters and behaviors that are as result of external causes. Free will is therefore not possible. Hedrick in explaining Hobbes Leviathan on liberty or freedom explains the aspects of opposition on motion or the external impediments on motion. Whatever is tied or environed such that it cannot move but within a certain space, a space that is determined by an external body cannot be considered to be at liberty (Hendrick, nd). In addition, consider an animal that move in water, and that is constrained in the ocean between walls. These animals are restrained within these walls as far as water is restrained and cannot move beyond this constrained space because of these external impediments. Likewise a free man would be one who has the ability to do anything and is not hindered whatever he wills to do, in which he is able to do. This means that no law has to be there to constrain the acts of man similar to how walls constrain water in the ocean to necessitate life in the ocean. Logically, there are many impediments that restrict humans from doing things or events that are within their ability to do. One may will to have something but has no power to get it or one works hard to move out of poverty but still they find themselves in poverty. Such a man is like an animal chained in a cage and is not free to move though they may have the will to achieve their objectives. This means that free will is not possible and the life and destiny of man is predetermined by external forces that are the causal agents and man has no control. There are those who believe on presence of free will in that though the life of man is determined by forces external to his control, folk psychology or things that constitute mental events or process such as beliefs, desires, hopes and feeling cause us to do what we do. There are though some who believe in determinism and still view these forces as being enough to constitute to free will as they might influence the actions of a person (Creel, 228). This is known as soft determinism. However, science has proved that the only possible causes are physical and cannot be abstract things. Feelings such as desires, feelings, of any mental phenomena do not constitute any physical thing. Believing in these things would therefore be unscientific. Hence changing the behaviors of a person does not involve changing the beliefs, desires, feelings of or any mental process as the soft determinists would believe, but would involve changing the whole person or the behavior of the person since as explained earlier, a person is determined by genetic endowments and environmental factors that are physical and can be touched. As science would have it is through these physical aspects that change might be possible. Therefore, it is not possible to change a person and this would make free will still impossible as the person would act according their natural endowments and behaviors as modeled by the environment. Kant argues that free will and will regarding the issue of morality is one and the same (Kant, 65). Therefore, according to Kant one has to choose actions that are morally good as universal law and is at liberty to choose these actions as compared to those that are not moral. Largely, Kant expounds that one is responsible for acting morally, and is directly responsible to the actions in free will. However, as explained earlier, one has not control of their actions as these are determined by strong personalities that are as result of genetic and environmental modeling. If man is not responsible for action in a particular way, man cannot therefore be responsible for the effects that result from these actions. Free will would therefore not be possible under these circumstances. The second option in solving the problem of free will would be taking the stance of libertarianism that has a second virtue. This approach is a compromise between the hard determinists and the compatibilists. Roosy and Deely (6) argue that this approach is more intuitive and is a compromise that has been reached at to embrace various religious circles as well as other hard determinists. This approach provides a legacy of dualism in relations, traditions and tries to read metaphysical from confusion about phenomenology and the frameworks for human action. This approach as Russel and Deery (6) elaborate provides a natural way though which the problem of free will is evaluated and this makes it more elaborate though more complex. However, the approach does not address the problem clearly as it tries to merge two opposing views; and hence hard determinism would be the preferable or appropriate solution to the problem of free will that provides more concrete answers compared to libertarianism. The problem of free will has been a pertinent one for many years and many philosophers have argued for and against free will, with others choosing to take a middle ground on the issue in compatibilism and soft determinism. However, as argued, for man to be at liberty or to be free, man has to be the causation agent of all his actions with no external force playing part in these events. This has been portrayed to be elusive phenomena and man is largely dependent on factors that are external to his nature and control and this defines his behaviors. Man is therefore not a cause of these events but a victim of the events. Free will does not therefore occur and life of man is determined by factors external to his life and beyond his control. Work cited Creel E., Richard. Thinking philosophically. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing, 2001 Honderich, Ted. Thomas Hobbes: causation itself, determinism, and their compatibility with freedom.  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousHobbes.htm 29th Nov. 2011 Kant Immanuel, Kant’s fundamental principles of metaphysical morals. MD: Manor, 2008. Kow, Simon. Necessitating Justice: Hobbes on Free Will and Punishment. CPSA Annual Meeting Winnipeg, Manitoba June 3, 2004 http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/Kow.pdf 29th Nov. 2011 O’Connor, Timothy. Free will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. http://171.67.193.20/entries/freewill/ 29th Nov. 2011 Rickaby, Joseph. Free will and the Four English Philosophers: Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Mill. London: Burns and Oates, 1906. Russel and Deery. How to solve the problem of free will. University of Francisco, 9 Oct. 2010 http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/mrvargas/Papers/SolvingFW.pdf 29th Nov. 2011 Read More