Evaluation of Campbells Defense of Free Will - Essay Example

In other words, free will is said to be operant whenever an action is seen to be morally responsible or lack thereof. In the same vein, free will is applied to those actions which lead to significant consequences. The second condition is important, for there is no utility in dissecting the intentions of an individual when they do not spring from a will to act. Having said this, sometimes people make the right choices for the wrong reasons. To prevent such pitfalls, Campbell says that ‘inner acts’ is what need to be considered, as opposed to ‘overt acts’.

Campbell goes on to further refine the scope of free will. An individual cannot be held accountable for decisions and actions that are beyond his realm of control. To this extent, only those acts accounted for, for which the instigator is the sole actor. As Campbell readily admits, his endeavor toward a sound definition of free will is only partially successful. Not only are there too many conditions, but there are also extraneous factors such as heredity and environment which have a bearing on the exercise of free will.

Considering all the loopholes and external factors, Campbell adopts a simplified guideline, whereby, an individual can be blamed or praised for his acts, only if he could have acted otherwise. There is some merit to the view that heredity and circumstance can considerably limit human volition. But this premise only sets the scope within which free will can be evaluated. It does not follow that determinism is the overarching explanation for human action. The other major problem with determinism is that it disburdens people from moral responsibility.

While Campbell’s success in defining free will could be debated, his essay has a definite utility. It helps the reader understand the various truisms, assumptions, variables, factors, and pitfalls that the project entails. Yet, by the end of the essay, a good measure of clarity is to be gained by the reader. While Campbell titles the essay in an open-ended fashion, toward the end of it, the authorial viewpoint is clear. Campbell endorses the inclusion of free will in discussing human nature and behavior.

I strongly agree with Campbell and cannot imagine how a philosophic discourse on morality could be conducted by eschewing the role of free will. I would go further and claim that free will is a fundamental characteristic of our species. Even in neurobiological terms, ours is the only species that can exercise control over their instincts and impulses. There is no meaning to culture and civilization without recognition of free will. Even practical affairs such as legal arbitration are based on the acceptance of free will.