According to science, human behaviour can be explained according to the laws of cause and effect. According to the first proponent of free will, Francis Galton, the ability to choose is not free but depends on circumstances available to us. This idea is supported by determinism which posits that all events, including those involving moral choices, are determined by the formerly existing causes. Based on the evidence provided by science over the years to support determinism, I think this argument is correct. The purpose and effect limit the ability of an individual to make decisions. Consequently, while people seem to be making a particular decision, it is not out of free will but due to previously existing factors that determine the choice the individual will earn. In this paper, the scientific argument on free will be discussed, followed by an analysis of limitation of science concerning the free will question, and a personal stance on the issue and finally the consequences of this stance on the morality of human behaviour and whether we are responsible for our actions.
The idea of free will does not show any form of limitation in science by any chance but instead shows how important it is in understanding the nature of the world. Science help demystifies and challenges previously held myths about life and the world, in general, giving answers to previously unchartered areas of philosophy. By taking the physics idea of determinism, philosophy is not limited by science but somewhat enhanced in understanding common human behaviour. Though science challenges long-held believes and ideologies, it does not eliminate the ability to utilize basic human faculties in understanding the world. Consequences, rather than showing limitation, the question on free will gives a chance for enhancing science.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I think free will is not present as I take the deterministic viewpoint of human behaviour. While it seems like people make decisions out of the free will, they are often forced by circumstances to choose one path instead of the other. Natural factors and other factors within a person determine what choice they will make at any given time. A myriad of factors cause the effects and determine the choices individuals make.
There is No Free Will
Whether humans have absolute control over their actions is a notion that has been fought for centuries. While ancient people held that an individual has the superior capacity to decide their course of action, science has it that human activities are not merely controlled by the human. Instead, believe in determinism or the idea that rational moral choices are determined by previously existing causes to take charge. Based on available knowledge in science, I think free will does not exist, but somewhat human action is controlled in a cause and effect fashion.
For a long time, theologians and philosophers believed in the idea of free will as a guide of the code of ethics such as Christian virtue of moral liberty. Such enlightenment thinkers as Immanuel Kant reaffirmed free intention in his ideas of freedom and goodness. Put, without free will, and it would not be possible to ask people to choose a path of righteousness. In criminal law and American politics, the concept of free will is highly regarded. However, science shows that there is no free will and instead give an alternative which is cause and effect to explain human behaviour.
The idea that free will does not exists, but instead, a cause and effect version of human behaviour is founded on scientific findings. First, the effects of genetics on the choices people make is one finding that shows that free will is irreverent in explaining human behaviour. Additionally, neuroscience has shown that humans do not depend on free will to determine the cause of their action. For example, German philosophers found that human neuron activity did not precede, but instead, action followed social work.
Instead of free will, a deterministic approach to understanding human behaviour is sound and favourable. This premise holds that humans cannot but otherwise could do. Consequently, the present action of a human is a result of previous work or state. In the mind of the human, one given moment is considered as a determinant of the next without making a conscious effort to determine the action. The cause and effect understanding of human action is more favourable than free will to explain morality.
The idea of the limit of science is one of the notions used in arguments against the concept of determinism founded in science. Philosophers who support the idea of free will hold that science has limits. This notion makes it hard to take the cause and effect model of human behaviour and action. However, I think it comes from the inability to understand the concept and effectively establish links.
Limits of science is an idea that is science's empirical limits define problems with observation hence limiting the ability of humans to inquire and give answers to questions on a phenomenon. It holds that science cannot answer such issues as the future, god and infinity. Due to its inability to answer some question, science is considered limited and cannot be depended upon to make accurate predictions or give answers to human behaviour. However, I think this idea does not stand in the understanding and determination of the presence or absence of a free will.
The free will question does not demonstrate the limitation of science as science adequately provide explanations to refute free will. Scientific evidence has been put forth to explain the absence of free will and support the alternative outlook, which is determinism. Consequently, we do not see science limited in any way by the question. This question asserts the ability of science to confirm philosophical ideas that create challenges to understand conclusively.
The use of scientific observation to show the power of cause and effect is a classic example of how practical science can be in creating philosophical knowledge. Philosophy can depend on science to explain a variety of issues in society through simple observation. By applying science, we understand how free will fails to explain human action and other phenomena in the universe.
I think free will does not exists as it does not explain a lot of human actions. Free will means that an individual is in total control of their actions. Closely related to sin, guilt and moral responsibility, free will means that the prime determiner of human activity is a consideration of whether they are right or wrong. However, we have seen people act entirely against what they consider morally correct. This means that rather than act out of free will, they were coerced by circumstances to behave in this manner.
The idea of free will does not hold in a universe where a myriad of factors affect the decisions humans make on a daily bases. For example, a simple deciding on whether to steal may not be based on free will. A man who is starving may not choose to take food out of free will but rather due to circumstances. Consequently, the deterministic idea of cause and effect make is sounder than free will in explaining human behaviour.
Considering that free will does not exist, we cannot take people as responsible for their actions. Since the cause of work an individual takes depends on preceding actions, then it means that they only reacted as the universe made them. For example, a person stealing to food only does so to satisfy his hunger and prevent himself from starving.
In conclusion, this paper shows that there is no free will, and human actions take a cause and effect version. We see that science presents a grounded understanding of determinism, where an event only follows the trend of the previous one. Rather than showing the limits of science, the question of free will shows its strength. I think free will is founded on the premise that if humans only acted as they ought was morally right, then we would not see people regret their actions. Consequently, no one is responsible for their actions.
