The concept of human freedom is a topic that has been discussed widely over the years. In addition, attempts have been made to explore some of the issues and factors that affect the manner in which human beings show their freewill. The process entails analyzing the diverse phases of self-consciousness and determining the standing points that affect the manner in which people act. A review of existing literature show that there are two primary standpoints which are central to the understanding of the subject of human freedom (Kane, 2005). The first one is the belief that every human being has the ability and right to choose what to do from a wide range of alternatives and possibilities that exist in the market. In other words, it is up to every person to decide how to act and behave in the society (Clarke, 2009). The second standpoints that the source of the choices that human beings make originate from within them. This implies that human beings have the ability to select any alternative available without being influenced by their external factors or other people. These standing points and the issue of human freedom can be understood by considering ideas related to determinism, libertarianism, and compatabilism, Although the three theories help understand the way people act and make choices, it is the theory of compatibilism offers an excellent basis for addressing the shortcomings of the other models and exploring issues related to human freedom.
Over the years, philosophers have strived to create models that can be used to account for human freedom. In most of the models, it is believed that human freedom relates to the ability of a person to make choices and act without any kind of impediment. Furthermore, freedom is achieved when a person is able to avoid any kind of control from other people when making choices (Shoemaker, 2013). This implies that human free will can only be achieved when a person has the power to decide how to act and make certain choices. Furthermore, it revolves around giving every human being the ability to belong to a particular group, behave in a certain way, and select a course of action without being influenced by others. The free will to do anything in life enables human beings to decide the kind of life that one lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Determinism is one of the frameworks that continue to be used as the basis for exploring human freedom. In this framework, it is postulated that anything that happens has a particular cause. The model is based on the idea that the state of the universe is determined by specific laws of nature that may not be easy to change. Since human actions also relate to the idea of nature, it implies that human being may not have the free will to decide what to do (Berofsky, 2012). Instead, they will only be acting in a manner that agrees with the laws of nature. It is also imperative to state that determinism promotes the idea that every event that occur in the world is causally inevitable (Clarke, 2009). The argument is based on the fact that if an event is to take place, then it implies that humans cannot prevent them. Instead, the human beings will end up acting in accordance with the laws of nature. Determinism differs significantly with the concepts of libertarianism and compatibilism. The libertarianists believe that the human society operates under specific liberty-related laws. In such system, human beings are given the freedom to make choices about the kind of life that they will live provided that it does not infringe on the rights of other people. The libertarianists further believe that human beings need to make decisions that will be deemed legal as per the existing laws. The rules are put in place to regulate the way people live and ensure that all human beings are treated equally s they strive to pursue happiness in their uniqueways. Compatibilism also provides a solution to the issue of free will in the consistent. Furthermore, it strives to address the incompatibility between human freedom and other model such as determinism. Within the compatibilism framework, it is postulated that people have the free will to act in a manner that show that they are socially, and morally responsible.
The concept of compatibilism addresses the shortcomings that are linked to determinism and libertarianism when used in examining the idea of free will. Under the deterministic model, it is believed that human beings do not have the free will to make their choices. Under libertarianism, it is also postulated that human beings have to operate within the laws and legal framework that have been put in place to protect other members of the society. These two models appear to be incompatible with the idea of free will and moral responsibility. It is imperative to state that moral responsibility usually require free will (Clarke, 2009). The argument is based on the fact that people will bet better placed to show moral responsibility when allowed to make free choices. Under determinism, thus may not be possible since the model holds that human being do not have control over their actions.
Compatibilism has emerged as an excellent model that can be used to deal with the problems that are linked to both causal determinism and libertarianism. The causal determinisms postulates that everything that takes place in the world is an inevitable result of the laws of nature. In addition, the current state of the world can be traced to the events that may have taken place in the past. If this is the true position, then it implies that everything that human beings do and the choices they make will be based on the laws of nature and things that occurred in the distant past (Bratman, 2007). One major implication of such deterministic assumption is that it means that human beings have no power to do anything without being influenced by the law of nature. Another major implication is that both determinism and libertarianism appear to prevent human beings from having free will (Clarke, 2009). Therefore, they will not have the ability to determine the kind of actions that they want to make in life. Therefore, determinism and libertinism do not offer a model for exploring the subject of human freedom. Compatibilism, on the other hand, seem to highlight the manner in which free will can allow people to be morally responsible in the society.
Human beings usually face different situations where they are expected to make decisions that may affect them and the rest of the society. The kind of choices that a person make in such situations can affect how people relate and the kind of life that communities live. Over the years, attempts have been made to explore how people act and make decisions. The process entails looking at issues related to human freedom. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that philosophers have developed different models that may be used as the basis for addressing the subject of human freedom and the way people make decisions. Determinism, libertarianism, and compatabilism are some of the models that have helped explore the subjects of human freedom and moral responsibility. The first two models hold that human beings are expected to act in accordance with specific laws. In the deterministic model, it is postulated that actions are usually affected by the laws of nature. In the libertinism model, it is believed that people need to make decisions that are in line with the legal frameworks that have been placed in the society. The two models contrast with compatabilism that explains that humans have the free will to make choices. Therefore, compatabilism offers amore valid basis for exploring the subject of free will and moral responsibility in the society.
References
Berofsky, B. (2012). Nature’s challenge to free will . Oxford University Press.
Bratman, M. (2007). Structures of agency . Oxford.
Clarke, R. (2009). Dispositions, abilities to act, and free will: The new dispositionalism. Mind , 118 (470), 323–51.
Kane, R. (2005). The Oxford handbook of free will (1st edn). Oxford University Press.
Shoemaker, D. (2013). Oxford studies in agency and responsibility . Oxford University Press.
