The Question of Free Will - Essay Example

Number Teaching Assistant Task Free Will Introduction Free will refers to the ability to make personal choices without having to consider external pressure, or bowing to external coercion. As such, free will appears in two main views, which are libertarianism and compatibilism. These two major views try to a given extent to explore the relation of free will to people within the society. The view of compatibilist takes the position of the restriction of the freedom of an individual according to his or her nature, as well as, religious beliefs. This splits down the options into two, giving one of a sinful nature and one of a regenerate nature. For instance, in the religious faction, an unbeliever cannot choose god out of his or her own free will. Libertarian free will does not restrict the freedom of an individual in accordance to his or her nature or religious beliefs. This incorporates two main versions of free will, which include “open absolute free will” and “non-open absolute free will”. The Question of Free Will However, many analysts question the concept of free will, whether or not people have free will. In fact, two major scholars, Kane and Pereboom, take this battle of free will questioning whether an individual has free will or not. They both take different conflicting and opposite ideologies over the concept of free will, and argue on their lines on the ability of an individual to have free will. They both take different sides in discussion what is free will and whether or not individuals have the capacity to wield free will. Dark Pereboom takes a position that human beings do not have the capacity to hold or possess free will, and it is not in their nature to have any moral responsibilities due to their ability to live without free will. Robert Kane takes a different view on the concept f free will within the society. He argues that human beings have the ability and capacity of free will, either due their inclination to scientific beliefs or to their religious beliefs (Pereboom 443). Dark Pereboom’s Standpoint Pereboom argues that human beings do not have free will, and as such, they can live without it in their lives, as well as, while undertaking their daily activities. As a lecturer of philosophy in Cornell University, Pereboom concurs with the ideals fronted by Baruch Spinoza, who outlines that human beings lack the kind of free will necessary to make an individual morally responsible owing to certain general facts about the nature of the universe. As such, a human being cannot be blameworthy for intentionally doing wrong. Furthermore, the same human being cannot be praiseworthy for intentionally doing what is right. He argues that this argument holds because of the validity in casual determinism present in free will, which in most cases, human beings fail to posses much of it, thereby making such individuals hard determinists. As such, it is impossible for human beings to have any kind of free will because casual determinism is true thereby disabling us from having any kind of moral responsibility. In addition, the concept of life without this kind of free will does not necessarily exclude morality or the sense of the meaning of life to individuals, which sometimes makes it beneficial. Consequently, Dark Pereboom argues that the concept of free will does not affect the day-to-day actions of an individual and as such, he or she should not take any kind of moral responsibility for their actions, committed either intentionally or accidentally. This personifies the concept of hard incompatibilism amongst individuals, thereby relieving them the duty of bearing responsibilities for their deeds and actions (Pereboom 444). Robert Kane’s Standpoint Robert Kane is another scholar of philosophy who takes a keen interest on the concept of free will among individuals. Working as a lecturer in the University of Texas, he argues that the concept of free will draws and ancient dispute, but still develops new themes as explored by modern day scholars. He argues that the problem of free will, as well as, its determinism or necessity, continues to puzzle great minds over the centuries, inclusive of literary figures, famous philosophers, legal theorists, theologians, psychologists, and scientists, as well as, every other ordinary individual. This paradigm of confusion about the free will of human beings extents to major constraints of the modern world such as science and religion, which tend to provide a formidable explanation to the people about the occurrences and special events in life (Kane 425). Kane takes both biblical and moral understanding of free will. He argues that an individual has free will, and proves this from different platforms. The religious view argues that God created man in His own image and likeness, and gave him the free will to decide or choose between good and evil. He gave man the intelligence and knowledge to decide what makes him happy and what makes him sad, as well as, the ability to decide on what is sinful and what is righteous. On the other hand, the scientific evaluation of free will questions the nature within the physical universe, as well as, our place as human beings within it, such as the determinations of the actions of an individual in accordance to the movements of atoms of other physical laws. He goes on to explore how the human psychology determines the actions of an individual and whether it is possible for psychologists to determine and predict the behavior and actions of other human beings. This nature of free will extents to cover more personal aspects on an individual’s life, such as moral responsibility, social conditioning, crime and punishment, good and evil, as well as, right and wrong. As such, according to Robert Kane, an individual has the capacity of free will, and thus holds moral responsibility for his or her actions, done either intentionally or otherwise. It relies on the availability of freedom within the society. Every individual has rights and privileges in the society by virtue of being a human being, and as such, commands freedom and rights to certain aspects, such as the right to life, the freedom of movement, the freedom of speech, and the right to equality (Kane 426). However, this freedoms and rights are only valid for as long as they do not interfere or breach the rights and freedom of other individuals living with that person in the society. For instance, ones right of movement does not permit or give him or her authority to tress pass another person’s property, or invade another individual’s privacy. This is where the concept of free will comes into play. Free will enables such individuals to exercise their rights and freedom within certain confines of the laws and regulations of a community in order to maintain peace and harmonious coexistence amongst individuals in the society. As such, the concept of free will, according to Robert Kane, is what allows the pure practice of maintenance of law and order within the communities, setting rules and regulations to govern proper behavior and characters of individuals, as well as, kick out unrest. The best way to avoid anxiety and upheavals within these communities is by apportioning moral responsibility and accountability on every action undertaken by an individual within his or her social circles. Criticism on Robert Kane and Dark Pereboom Kane argues that human beings have the capacity of free will and as such, can make their own decisions on their actions and activities. As such, an individual has the moral responsibility for every action they make, especially if the action is wrong and affects other persons within the community. However, the bad thing about this concept is the fact that this free will operates under certain parameters, an absence of which will deny each member their freedom and rights. For instance, a person who causes trouble within the society by exercising his free will and freedom may end up in jail, because of the breach of modern laws and customs of community policing. This is much in the contrary of free will because an individual can only exercise his free will as long as his actions do not affect the free will of another individual within the same social circle. In addition, an individual has to bear moral responsibility for all the actions and deeds that they perform either intentionally or accidentally, depending on the extent of damage caused such as payment of fines, imprisonment, or judgment and death in accordance to biblical teachings. According to the religious teachings, an individual has the free will to be righteous or sinful. However, he or she has to bear the consequences of their choice, such as the fury of hell for the sinner and the joy of heaven for the righteous (Kane 426). Dark Pereboom argument of free will outlines that an individual has no capacity to have free will, and as such, does not bear any moral responsibility for their actions done either intentionally or accidentally. Therefore, an individual cannot take any credence for doing an action that is of good nature and valor even if he or she does it intentionally. On the other hand, an individual cannot shoulder blame for every bad action he or she does intentionally. Such is the case because of the existence of casual determinism in the operations of nature and human activity. However, this is a very wrong approach to free will because it may lead to chaos and mayhem within the society. An individual without free will intentionally cause harm and damage within the society because he or she knows that they will not bear any moral responsibility for their actions. As such, they will not answer to anyone or be accountable for their actions. This may lead to anxiety, heightened tensions, and gross fights within the society as people seek redress for every bad action done upon them since there are no alternative avenues for repatriation, such as legal laws and courts of justice (Pereboom 444). Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to note that free will is necessary within the society in order to maintain law and order, and for peaceful co-existence between all members of the community. The position taken by Robert Kane is the best concept of free will that should operate in a given societal setting. This is because it allows people to exercise their free will and act in accordance to what they believe. It also has a limit to the extent to which an individual can exercise their free will such that it does not affect the freedom of other members of the society. However, this seems like the weakness of Kane’s position of free will as it confines the exercise of free will by an individual to certain parameters. On the other hand, Derk Pereboom takes a conflicting position of free will, which is very wrong and unethical for adoption in every society. It is only good because it does not limit an individual from exercising his or her freedom. However, it is very wrong because it does not account responsibility for every action that an individual does, which may lead to mayhem and chaos within the society. This is its major weakness. Work Cited Derk, Pereboom, “Why We Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It”, in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 443-56. Robert, Kane, “Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes”, in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 425-38. Read More