The concept of free will is defined as the ability to make a choice pertaining to the manner in which human beings act, and it assumes that human beings possess the freedom to choose their behavior. The idea of free will indicates that people are self-determined; for instance, people are free to choose to commit a crime or otherwise, with the exception of children and mentally ill persons. Proponents of the idea of free will postulate that although behavior is not random, free will frees people from the causal influences of the past events. The idea of free will is closely connected to the concepts of guilt, responsibility, sin, and praise among other judgments that are only apply to freely chosen actions. In the traditional context, actions that deserve blame or credit are only those that are freely willed. However, the possibility of the existence of free will has remained a subject of debate among psychologists and philosophers, who conceive the idea differently. This essay explores the concept of free will as it relates to behaviorism in a bid to establish whether the argument that free will is an illusion by behaviorists or determinists is true.
Determinism versus Incompatibilism
Behaviorists or determinists maintain that free will is an illusion since past events influence a person's behavior. The behaviorists’ argument suggests that determinism and free will cannot be compatible since the fact that external forces influence one's behavior indicates that the person cannot control how they act ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . Determinism is defined as the idea that only one course of the event is possible at a given time, thus contradicting the concept of free will. The argument that free will is incompatible with determinism is further defined as incompatibilism. Incompatibilism further comprises of three dimensions, including hard incompatibilism, hard determinism, and metaphysical libertarianism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hard incompatibilism
Hard incompatibilism maintains that the concept of determinism is incompatible with both moral responsibility and free will. Hard incompatibilism defends the notion that all actions are determined and the idea that if actions are wholly determined by the factors that are beyond a person’s control, then people would lack moral responsibility. However, hard incompatibilists argue that since people are conscious of their intention to act, they are responsible for the consequences of their behavior ( Baumeister, 2008) . Hence, people have the power to stop a certain action, illustrating an element of free will. Therefore, the hard incompatibilists maintain that although free will is incapable of initiating a voluntary act but has the capacity to control the execution of an act, then free will and determinism are compatible and they work together for the good of the society. On the other hand, metaphysical libertarianism holds that free will is at least possible and that determinism is false.
Metaphysical Libertarianism
Libertarians maintain that free will exists since people have the power to decide to act in a specific manner. Libertarians justify that free will is real while determinism is false by illustrating that people possess the power or ability to execute a particular action or fail to execute the action. For instance, one can decide to drink coffee or tea, and one is never given impediments to prevent him or her to drink what one likes ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . Thus, libertarians suggest that one lacks free will if he or she lacks the ability or power to do as they please. For instance, if one is tied up, he or she lacks free will because they cannot go to their preferred destinations or perform an activity that they like. Hence, from the Libertarians perspectives, people have free will irrespective of whether their actions are influenced by external forces of nature or past events, provided a person has the power and ability to do as they please and no factors are preventing the person to do as they desire.
Hard determinism
Hard determinism maintains that since determinism is true, free will is impossible. Hard determinists postulate that a person’s behavior is shaped in childhood, whereby an as a child, one is conditioned only to choose what they can do and have ( Baumeister, 2008) . Hence, although one is not forced to act in a particular manner, it does not translate to possessing free will since a person’s behavior is controlled by the ideals that are equipped in a person during childhood. For instance, people are taught that acting in a particular manner is wrong or right, and they carry such beliefs into their adulthood. Therefore, illustrating that people act in a certain way since their wills ate pre-determined by particular external controls over which a person lacks control.
The relationship between Behavior and Free Will
The concept of free will pertains to the capacity to make choices for mature and mentally sound individuals; the process of making decisions is closely related to a person’s behavior, whereby a person’s behavior is influenced by both nature and nurture ( Mele, 2010) . Nature pertains to the genetic characteristics that may define such aspects as intelligence, which is crucial in the decision-making process. Conversely, nurture refers to the environment that a person is brought up in, and it influences a person’s behavior to a great extent. People learn the expected code of conduct from their environment, whereby the adults that children interact with play a central role in influencing and shaping their behavior.
Children learn through such measures as behavior observation, where they tend to replicate the behavior that they see in their immediate environment in their later years ( Mele, 2010) . For instance, children brought up in violent homes are likely to become violent when they grow up, and it is the same case with children from drug-abusing homes. Further, such measures as rewards and punishment play a central role in influencing behavior, where rewards encourage behavior while punishment discourages a behavior. However, based on the societal ideals regarding the expected behavior and code of conducts adults of sound mind are aware of the expected behavior, and thus they possess the duty to choose the right behavior for the good of the society. Mele (2010) notes that b ehavior is closely linked with moral responsibility, whereby actions that one freely chooses to execute are used to judge someone for such actions as defining sin, guilt, or rewarding and punishing a person.
Libertarian’s Perspective about the forces that influence Behavior
From the libertarians’ perspective, people possess free will since as long as they have the power and the capacity to execute an action, they are free to do as they desire. Libertarians’ ideology is compatible with the moral responsibility since it allows for one to be judged according to their actions since they argue that people have a choice to choose whatever they feel like doing. Further, the libertarians go-ahead to note that a person's need to act may be influenced by the forces of the universe or past experiences. However, the libertarians maintain that as long as there are no constraints or a threat preventing one from acting in a particular manner, a person is free to decide on the best action irrespective of whether the need to act is externally motivated ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . Therefore, the libertarians argue that people are responsible for their behavior because they cannot blame external forces for their actions given that they possess the absolute freedom to undertake their preferred activities. For instance, a person who beats up another cannot blame the environment that he or she was brought up in even if it was violent since the person already understands the right and wrong thing to do and he or she made the decision to beat the other person.
However, the libertarians' argument that determinism is false is faulty because external factors always influence behavior. Developmental psychology illustrates the contribution of both nature or genetics and nurture or environment to human development. His or her experiences extensively influence a person's behavior as a child as well as the genetic characteristics. For instance, some people possess effective decision-making skills, which may be innate based on their intelligence. Thus they may tend to avoid indulging in some activities that they may perceive as harmful to the society for the good of the community ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . On the other hand, the experiences of a person influence the manner in which a person acts or behaves when faced with certain circumstances. For instance, people that were brought up in homes that abuse drugs are likely to become drug users in a bid to relieve stress or turn violent when faced with difficult situations. Further, the fact that actions are externally motivated negates the libertarians’ view that determinism is false.
Assessing Hard Determinism about the forces that influence Behavior
People cannot act unless there is an external force motivating an action; for instance, hunger influences a person to cook, while anger may cause a person to be violent depending on the nature of the person ( Baumeister, 2008) . Thus the hard determinists’ view that behavior is externally motivated is valid. However, the hard determinists’ position that one is not to blame for his or her actions is inappropriate, since it is incompatible with the concept of moral responsibility. The concept of moral responsibility maintains that human beings have moral obligations for their actions, and therefore, they can be punished, praised, blamed, or rewarded for their action or omission. Moreover, the concept of moral responsibility maintains that human beings are responsible for determining the actions that are morally obligatory. The aspect of determining morally obligatory actions is a crucial concern of ethics.
The hard determinists’ conception that free will is an illusion is faulty since human beings are responsible for determining the actions that are morally right and ethical. Maintaining that human beings are not to blame for their behavior since it is externally motivated is detrimental to the society since there would be no such thing as criminal behavior ( Nichols, 2004) . The hard determinists’ argument seeks to justify the fact that human beings should not be morally responsible since they lack control over their actions. However, the argument is inapplicable and impractical since for a society to be balanced and maintain order and justice, people should be held accountable for their actions unless they are not mentally sound or if they are children.
Analyzing the Argument that Free Will is an Illusion
Both hard determinists’ and the libertarians’ arguments are faulty in explaining human behavior as it relates to free will. However, the hard incompatibilists have played an essential role in clarifying the concept of free will as it relates to human behavior by explaining the factors that motivate behavior as well as the manner in which human beings respond to such factors. According to the hard incompatibilists, human beings must be held accountable for their behavior to ensure order and peaceful co-existence. Hard incompatibilists maintain that human beings can only uphold the desired behavior if they have a moral responsibility ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . Thus, the hard incompatibilists, although they agree with the libertarian's view that human beings are free since they can do whatever they desire as long as they have the power and capacity to do so. They are also keen to note that the idea of free will is limited, not just by threats or other factors that may prevent a person to execute an action, such as imprisonment, but also by the moral obligation that each person has towards the society.
Moreover, hard incompatibilists agree with the hard determinists on the idea that human behavior is always externally motivated, whereby natural forces and past experiences are responsible for influencing the manner in which an individual behaves. However, they disagree with the hard determinists’ idea that people are not responsible for their actions since the external forces that influence behavior are to blame, citing that the idea is incompatible with the ideals of both moral responsibility and free will. Preferably, the hard incompatibilists maintain that the concepts of determinism and free will work together, suggesting that the two concepts are compatible ( Nichols, 2004) . Human beings are prompted by external forces to act in a particular manner, but the decision to act in response to the forces is influenced by free will, where a person is responsible for determining the ideal action to take while taking into consideration the needs of the broader community.
Based on the arguments put forth by the libertarians and hard incompatibilists, the concept of free will exists, although it is limited to a certain degree by the idea of moral responsibility. The libertarians’ definition of freedom is the ability and power to execute a particular task; therefore, the fact that human beings possess the capacity and the power to execute their desired actions if impeding factors are absent illustrates that they possess free will ( Chung & Hyland, 2012) . In this case, the free will is not limited to executing only the morally acceptable actions, but the free will also allow people to execute the morally unacceptable actions as long as that is their desire. Further, a person's past experiences, such as disciplinary measures that were taken to teach a person the morally acceptable behavior do not alter a person's free will, since the desire to act is influenced by a person's present thoughts, preferences, and desires.
Thus, the hard incompatibilists introduced the concept of moral responsibility, demonstrating that free will is limited since one is still held accountable for their actions despite the fact that they have the freedom to act as they please ( Miles, 2013) . Although the hard incompatibilists agree with the idea that human behavior is influenced by natural forces and past events, they maintain that all sane persons are aware of their environment and are conscious of their actions. Hence, they are subject to rewards or punishments if they uphold the right behavior, or if they engage in unethical behavior respectively. Hard incompatibilists further agree that human actions are not random, but it is the sole responsibility of an individual to choose the right thing to do to avoid hurting other people.
The above analysis illustrates that the concept of free will is controversial because while it involves the freedom to do what one desires, external forces, such as the moral ideals that societies hold limit the extent to which one can exercise his or her free will ( Miles, 2013) . However, the behaviorists’ position that free will is just but an illusion is inappropriate since despite the existence of moral ideals and the external forces that influence behavior, the decision to act in a certain way remains the discretion of an individual, who chooses the best action to take based on his evaluation of what is appealing or appropriate to meet his or her desires. The power and capability to act in a particular desired manner, therefore, illustrates that free will is not just an illusion, but an ideal concept that exists to provide a basis for moral judgment.
Conclusion
The debate on free will is centered on the factors that influence a person to act in a certain way, whereby the above literature illustrates that people are motivated to behave or act in a particular way by their past experiences or other natural forces. Behavioral psychologists who believe that a person’s behavior is solely influenced by past events and natural forces maintain that free will is an illusion. However, psychologists who believe that human beings have the power and capacity to make decisions on the best behavior or action maintain that free will exists. However, moral responsibility is the key factor that influences the extent to which a person can exercise their will, since although past experiences influence a person’s behavior, the decision to act is a present decision, and people are conscious of their actions as well as their consequences. Hence, human beings have free will to behave as they desire, but they have a moral responsibility to engage in behavior that promotes the good of the society.
References
Baumeister, R. (2008). Free Will in Scientific Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (1), 14-19.
Chung, M. C., & Hyland, M. (2012). History and Philosophy of Psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mele, A. (2010). Testing Free Will. Neuroethics, 3 (2), 161-172.
Miles, J. (2013). ‘Irresponsible and a Disservice’: The integrity of social psychology turns on the free will dilemma. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52 (2), 205-218.
Nichols, S. (2004). The Folk Psychology of Free Will: Fits and Starts. Mind & Language,19 (5), 473-502.
