Problem of Free Will - Term Paper Example

Download file to see previous pages 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 ...Download file to see next pagesRead More