Introduction
Free will refers to having control over individual actions, which implies that outside forces do not determine people's actions. Free will is an aspect used to separate humanity from all other things in the universe. All human beings are said to have free will. Free will is used in critical discussions such as morality in answering the question of right or wrong, which subject humanity to moral evaluation. The question of free will has also been used in discussions of the problem of evil, which has been addressed by the argument that having free will has led to imperfect beings prone to evil. All the above cases show that free will is extremely valuable, and many people consider life unworthy living without it.
The argument against free will on based on opinions such as fatalism, determinism and compatibilism. Fatalism is built on the idea that all preposition on the past, present and the future have already been settled. The argument on fatalism shows that free will does not exist an issue of the past, present, and the future have been resolved before our existence, and thus as humans, we have lost control over our actions. Fatalism relates to the arguments of theologians on the foreknowledge of God (Ayers, 2017). The opinion is that because God knows, everything and He is aware of every action that we will take. In that case, humanity free will is limited, as there is nothing they can do differently. Fatalism claims that every human action has been settled in advance. The result is the human lack of free will. Fatalists assume the existence of an omniscient God, but the main claim is the formulation of facts on the future and their influence on humanity.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The concept of free will can be discussed under the deterministic system with the argument that everything that happens is as a result of prior causes and the causes have inevitable consequences. The determinism concept relates to fatalism. Fatalism relates to free will showing the future is settled and works with determinism, which explains why the future is decided. Determinism arguments show that all events and actions have sufficient causes (Chan & Nichols, 2016). In this sense, the present actions are caused by previous, and so on (Chan & Nichols, 2016). Thus, every occurrence is preceded by prior works, which can be traced to circumstances before we were born. Determinism convinces human beings that everything is caused by forces which humans have no control over. It, therefore, means that human actions are caused by forces beyond control, which shows a limitation and lack of free will. It concludes that humans never act freely and are never free from environmental effects. The main argument, therefore, is that forces beyond human control cause every action. As a result, social activities caused by forces beyond their control shows that human does not act freely and therefore, a total lack of free will.
The argument on free will also find a response in the compatibilism in the claim that free will and determinism are compatible. The claim shows that human beings can have freedom even with the truth from determinism. Compatibilists thus present a shrunk account of free will from its inflated perspective that placed the notion of free will on metaphysical implications which humanity are unable to satisfy. Therefore, the goal of compatibilism is to ensure that free will is addressed from a perspective where actions focused on are those that we believe to be free (Chan & Nichols, 2016). The idea is to compare them with activities considered to be unfree provide analysis through an evaluation of those beliefs. It is believed that the difference between free and unfree actions is not in the causation but on how things are caused. Thus, unfree actions are things people do not want to do and are forced to do while free things are actions that we do according to the desires without being coerced (Van Inwagen, 2018). Compatibilist therefore shows that the idea of freedom is not on being uncaused but is being unforced, giving a sense of freedom in behavior depending on how it is caused.
The discussion on the premise of determinism and is involved in the free will lies in the belief that free will requires determinism. The assumption that determinism is false and that, and instead, actions just happen has been rendered impossible. The possible is eliminated in the acknowledgement that lack of prediction shows that person actions would be unpredictable and chaotic (Franklin, 2017) (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). The analysis indicates that without determinism, free will would lead to insanity as opposed to freedom. The relationship between free will is determinism is assessed based on self-determination, where an individual ascertains that actions are free when self-determines them in desire and personality.
Many conclusions have been arrived at with arguments of that even when desires and personality cause the actions, the desire and nature themselves are triggered by outside forces, and thus there is no free will (Ayers, 2017). The problem arises in that in actions being indirectly caused by external causes. On the other hand, the issue is resolved by the acceptance that free will should be taken as it is on the argument that actions performed under personality and desires are sufficient to be free and, in that case, are free to the extent of human freedom achievable.
Several complaints have been raised opposing the argument that forces which people have no control causes everything we do, and thus human beings never act freely. Objections include the libertarian response which views social action as not being subject to the laws of cause and effect responsible for the governorship of physical objects. The claim is that human activities are not causally determined since human beings have the power to choose and experience freedom regardless of what happens. The premise of determinism can also be objected on the argument of experience (Ayers, 2017). Since knowledge is regarded as the best evidence of freedom, a common assumption is that theories that conflict with experience are justified to be rejected. Humans have a direct and conscious experience when they participate and enjoy the freedom of making a choice (Chan & Nichols, 2016) s. In this case, the theory of determinism should be rejected since its conflicts with the experience argument.
The deterministic premise of human actions controlled by external factors can be overcome using various arguments. Many argue that life without free will is impossible as any person must have the ability to choose their actions to survive. Only a few exceptions to our efforts are influenced by external forces (Ayers, 2017). Humans beings rely on the brain to perform their activities. People can turn down and refuse to perform actions which are not following their desires. The ability to choose how to respond and act exists and is attributed to human activities as they work towards the fulfilment of needs and wishes.
On the other hand, arguments exist which show that previous events cause all events while others are uncaused and thus spontaneous (Ayers, 2017). A deterministic decision is, therefore shown when a decision has a forced outcome from prior circumstances and lacks free will. Therefore, if the world is deterministic choice becomes impossible as the actions are already determined. But if the world is random, individuals feel that making choices presents real options to make real choices, act on them. It also shows that 'Free' does not mean having the ability to do anything, but it means choosing to achieve possible but perhaps difficult things from many options. Thus the world presents a mixture of determinism in having free will and performing actions at random.
Conclusion
In my opinion, I agree that free will would be in existence if all human activity is "determined" by previous activity external human control. However, I do not accept the argument that the absence of determined activity would result in random or chaotic events with human actions unpredictable. I believe that it is impossible to know whether human activity is entirely "determined" or potentially free. The most plausible argument against Free Will, from a personal perspective, lies in the possibility that Causal Determinism is true. Determinism, which accurately describes the state of the universe presents a viable case even though Causal Determinism is non-falsifiable.
The argument, however, is based on the possibility that Causal Determinism is valid and will always exist, which in turn creates the eternal possibility that Free Will does not exist. I also supposed the knowledge that it is not possible both theoretically and practically for humans to know whether Free Will does or does not exists. The free will debate relates to the arguments of the existence or lack of a "God," or 'gods' a concept supported by people with only faith and in this way is similar the idea whether Free Will exists or does not exist exists. The debate and searching for proof can be interpreted as what people are compelled to do by forces beyond their control.
References
Ayers, M. R. (2017). The refutation of determinism: An essay in philosophical logic . Routledge.
Chan, H. Y., Deutsch, M., & Nichols, S. (2016). Free will and experimental philosophy. A Companion to Experimental Philosophy , 61 .
Franklin, R. L. (2017). Freewill and determinism: A study of rival conceptions of man . Routledge.
McKenna, M., & Pereboom, D. (2016). Free will: A contemporary introduction . Routledge.
Van Inwagen, P. (2018). The incompatibility of free will and determinism. Agency AndResponsibility (pp. 17-29). Routledge.
