For centuries, following the evolution of human civilization, there has always been the need for every individual to practice their rights for freedom. This right is guaranteed throughout the world with the constitutions adopted for every independent country. This right typically protects the freedom of every individual to act according to their free will, and should not, therefore, be dictated on what to do. However, democracy is not always a good thing, especially if this right has a direct negative impact on the rights of another individual. In the same manner, it is not easy to practice free will in a society that is guided by norms and stipulations which regulate how a person should behave, and interact with the other members of the community. The existence of free will is in itself a very complex subject which requires understanding and interpretation from the two main fronts involved, which are the incompatibility and determinism.
Most people would hold that free will is the stipulation that an individual decides what they want to do freely, without any consequences to themselves, but if this is to be the case, then the rights and freedoms of other individuals in the society would be implicated in such a manner that could as well impact their wellbeing negatively (Wegner, Gilbert, & Wheatley, 2017) . Consider a scenario in which an individual decides to play loud music in a neighborhood that has little children, as well as individuals who do not appreciate the kind of music being played or the level of the volume put. By playing such loud music out of the free will, this individual will be implicating the rights of the other members of the community to silence and serenity. Therefore, it is essential that this right of free will be regulated by laws, in which case one would have the privilege of choosing between two or more options.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this regard, it is crucial that free will be allowed in such a manner that requires an individual to make decisions of their actions by selecting among a few given options. Considering the scenario presented above, therefore, the person wishing to play music in an environment that habits different kinds of individuals should be regulated by a body that stipulates the type of music that should be played in the neighborhood, with what level of volume that is acceptable. This would explain why most regions have policies and regulations which protect the tenants against pollution. It is essential to point out that the existence of free will should not be without rules (Chan, Deutsch, & Nichols, 2016) . These regulations go a long way in ensuring that individuals in the society act a certain way, and are reminded to be more mindful of those around them.
Consider a second scenario, which is the school setting. A student should be allowed to practice their right of attending classes when it is convenient for them. However, if this free will is allowed literally, as it sounds, then most students would most likely be missing their classes more than regularly, which ultimately will lead to poor grades and the lack of qualifications that are needed for the job market. Such an individual, therefore, will not be adequately prepared for the adult life out of school, since they will not be adequately equipped with the skills needed, not just for the workplace, but also their characters will not have been molded perfectly. This would explain why institutions of higher learning have registers which stipulate the number of times a student is supposed to attend lessons for them to qualify sitting for the final exams. By not attending the specified number of lessons, a student can equally be expelled from the institution.
This second scenario is a perfect example of what the regulations for the existence of free will mean. It is the right of an individual to choose between two variables, either of which has its consequences. Determinism, on the other hand, is the view that the state of every phenomenon is determined by the laws and the former state of the universe (Ayers, 2017) . It is essential to observe that the freedom of every individual to practice their free will was stipulated long before civilization if the society is to put into consideration determinism. To this point, free will would hold that every individual has the right to act the way they wish without having to face any consequence whatsoever since determinism was set long ago. In the same aspect, it would be correct to point out that all the regulations and policies that have been established regarding the right to freedom since the onset of civilization, are of no use or significance.
However, determinism, as the basic concept for free will, does not hold water when considering the notion that the conditions governing an individual's behavior were preset, or set long before they acted in the way they did, thus had no option than to act in the exact way they did. What this notion implies is that an individual should not be held liable for their actions since they did not choose their actions, or the conditions preceding these actions. This misguided notion would be the loophole in any judicial setting in the sense that it would excuse all offenders, who will be understood as merely having been following the pattern of the conditions preceding their actions when they acted in the way they did (Ayers, 2017) . Murders, thefts, and other crimes would go unpunished, encouraging more people to act recklessly without considering the rights of those around them.
It is important, therefore, to observe that free will and determinism are incompatible, which means that while human beings have the privilege of choosing their actions, these actions should be made based on the prevailing conditions. In other words, it is essential that people act bearing in mind the environment they are in, and how their actions may affect those around them, or bring about negative consequences, even to themselves. While determinism holds that the conditions for human activities are preset, and thus no one is given the room to think through their actions, the truth remains that human beings act in response to whatever phenomena are present at the given time (Ayers, 2017) . This creates enough room for policies and regulations to be enacted, most specifically by the constitution, the judiciary, the church, and other bodies in authority, to govern how people in the society interact, and act.
When it comes to object identity, it is crucial to determine what form of identification is to be used, since each firm of identity is not only distinct, but it is complex in such a manner that displacing an item in the form of identity would lead to the creation of a whole new phenomenon. The two primary types of identity are numerical identity and qualitative identity. Numerical identity is the recognition of two phenomena as being the same, i.e., one item rather than two (Hopkins, 2016) . What distinguishes this form of identity from other types of identity is the fact that while other forms of identity focus on building on the similarity and differences between two or more aspects, numerical identity focuses on proving that these aspects are in actuality the same thing.
Qualitative identity, for instance, builds on the similarities between things. In this case, a set of twins can be said to be qualitatively identical in the sense that they are two human beings sharing a lot of similar traits. But these twins cannot be said to be numerically identical because they are a pair, which is what makes them twins in the first place. The problem of identifying the same person (twins) is particularly crucial than identifying objects such as sheep in the sense that a person cannot be divided into parts, neither are they formed differently in stages (Hopkins, 2016) . A person occurs as a whole, even if it is in the case of twins, be they identical or fraternal, while objects are developed in phases. This aspect implies that objects are developed in stages, which would make two objects different at one point or the other. This, coupled with the fact that they are not produced as sets, makes it difficult for objects to be numerically identical.
The fission case is a hypothetical case in which an individual split into two continuants, each being psychologically continuous with the individual at the moment. To understand the four possibilities of the fission case, consider the following analogy. Person A donates his brain to two of his brothers, B and C. these three individuals are triplets. In this case, Person A is identical to both B and C, A is only identical to B but not C, Person A is identical to C but not B. the fourth possibility is that Person A is neither identical to B nor C. in this case, the four answers are, the one, the other (Olson, 2016). Neither, and both. The problem for these possibilities is the fact that they are held together by a central point, in this case, Person A. it would be impossible to determine the district personalities of either of the three phenomena without having to determine first the similarities shared through the standard cord unless the answer is neither.
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 .
Hopkins, B. C. (2016). Numerical Identity and the Constitution of Transcendence in Transcendental Phenomenology. Research in Phenomenology , 46 (2), 205-220.
Olson, E. T. (2016). The role of the brainstem in personal identity. Animals: New Essays , 291- 302.
Wegner, D. M., Gilbert, D., & Wheatley, T. (2017). The illusion of conscious will . MIT press.
