Free will describes a rational ability to make a choice of an activity when there are different possible alternatives. Free will however has created a lot of contradicting arguments for and against the thought of whether we truly have free will. Philosophers and scholars have sparked debates for quite a long period of time and each philosopher has a different elaboration of the subject with most of them agreeing that free will requires that one be responsible for their actions. With this agreement it is enough to say that the core of our responsibility is our own wills and choices. According to (O’Connor, 2005) free will is a just but a conceptual aspect of the argument but philosophers like René Descartes thinks that with free will there is freedom to choose and that free will is naturally free and in no circumstance can it be denied. Our free will is however hindered by determinisms which classify as; physical determinism, biological determinism, psychological determinism and theological determinism. A small number of philosophers say that free will is in simple terms unattainable. This paper however will debate whether we truly have free will.
(Benjamin Libet, 47-57) conducted an experiment in his quest to find out whether voluntary actions are natural or are subject to determinisms. In this experiment, the human test subjects are conscious and in control of their actions but the processes are induced unconsciously. The experiment allows for the testing of the responsibility and guilt of the individual. With timing of the processes and consciousness of the brain, the experiment revealed that the human brain unconsciously launches voluntary action. If this is the case, the experiment begs the question of how free will is involved in voluntary action. The experiment shows that free will or rather consciousness shows approximately 150 milliseconds before muscle activity reaction begins. The consciousness therefore is therefore responsible for action or lack thereof.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another experiment was also conducted to support the notion that human beings have free will (Vohs and Schooler 49-53). The experiments were aimed at finding out whether ethical behavior could lead one to believe that they have free will. 70% of people from across 36 countries, in a survey conducted, affirmed that their hold the key to their fate (International Social Survey, 1998). These two experiments conducted aimed at finding out if making humans to believe that behavior is manipulated by deterministic factors would enhance cheating. It is noted that altering a person’s responsible nature could make them alter their character to suit their current attitudes. These two experiments altered the pre-conceived notion about free will in order to measure what influence it had on ethical behavior more specifically cheating. The findings of the experiment were that in case the beliefs of free will are faulted with, cheating would increase significantly. A brief notification that free will is a delusion resulted in direct and indirect cheating; pressing for a deterministic world perception of the same would kill morality for sure. Although the experimenter urges not to interpret the findings too much, the experiment supported the argument that free will exists.
Looking on the other side of the line, liberationists argue that free will is incompatible with determinism especially. Articles about determinism have been at the center of this debate about the existence of free will. This has got people asking whether their actions are manipulated by God, physics, environmental factors or psychological factors. What we learn from all these determinism factors is that they are the limiting factors to free will. This is because no matter the rules they make us to abide by, the future is inevitable. No matter the situation, Aristotle said that acting or not acting is all up to us. This side of the argument debates that if determinism is indeed true, then our current situations are results of past choices and there is nothing that can be done to alter the situation at present. This theory argues that free will should have the loophole to fix past sins and we cannot do that than we do not have free will.
Philosophers have failed to work out and give substantial and bold answers that free will is coherent. Free will has been subject to further study and experiments. Some philosophers argued that Benjamin Libet’s experiment to check the timing of conscious decisions and action is misleading. Other interpretations contradict the interpretation that this experiment concludes substantial evidence that activity is already taking place before the person intends to perform it. This interpretation shows that we may not be aware a we launch action but we have the capacity to prevent the actions from taking place if these actions are triggered by involuntary psychological factors. Wegner (2002) compiled different findings of experiments to back the notion that our actions are triggered by our conscious will is a deep seated deception that he claims originates from our mental systems. According to Wegner, other experimenters like Libet and O’Connor do not completely make their conclusions hold water.
Another argument against free will is incompatibility. This holds that free will can never be on the same wavelength logically because our actions are predetermined. The original statement in support of incompatibility was that if our actions are manipulated like in the case of robots then we do not have free will. This received opposition from compatibilists saying that we do not hold the same cognitive and physical state as these objects. Another point regarding incompatibility is that freedom to do anything is not a voluntary process. This argument states that man is the causal agent and to take responsibility of one’s actions is the first result of the choice meaning that there are no past results of that course. If therefore determinism is genuine, then man is not in control of his actions meaning that man does not have free will. The other argument against free will in incompatibility was launched by Carl Ginet. The argument states that if determinism is genuine then we have no power to change the actions of the past and since we have no power over our past actions then we do not have power over their repercussions. This is the consequence argument and it translates that we do not have free will.
Another limit to free will is theological determinants which states that all events are preassigned and are bound to happen one way or the other. The first support for this argument is that God dictates all happenings and that he planned for everything to happen that way. The other statement from this argument is that God is divine and perfect and that he knows everything about the future and it is fixed to happen the way he envisions. Theological determinism does not allow the room to argue in terms of libertarianism. If the creator therefore plans everything beforehand that means we have no control over anything we do or how we react to other actions and that means we are denied free will.
In conclusion, it is shrewd to say that this argument about free will has gone on and on for millennia and it is high time philosophers came up with a good viewpoint and agree to it. How I view free will after this debate is that a human being is truly free if he does not come across determinants. Given the arguments for and against existence of free will it would be reasonable to agree that we have free will until substantial evidence denies it. Contrary to incompatibility theory which likened us to machines, human being actually have the luxury of choice and can choose to be independent willed. It is undeniable that our free will is limited as a result of the set rules but the best gift for the human race I believe is free will.
References
Inwagen, P.V (March 1975) The incompatibility of free will and determinism. Retrieved 10 November 2017 from: https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/files/2013/01/van_inwagen.pdf
Libet, B. (1 August 1999) Journal of Consciousness Studies. Imprint Academic(47-57) Retrieved 11 November 2017 from: http://pacherie.free.fr/COURS/MSC/Libet-JCS1999.pdf
O’Connor, T.(7 January 2002) Free Will. Retrieved 10 November 2017 from: https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/entries/freewill/
