The idea of free will has been addressed from various philosophical perspectives with each of the involved thinkers making attempts to forge a theory that can easily convince the critics. Theories, such as determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism, are evidence of the perspectives that individual philosophers have taken to address the issue. The aim of this essay is to undertake an analysis of these theories for the purpose of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each and further highlighting the most convincing one. The essay will attempt to inform why people act in a certain way and the influences on their actions while considering the application of free will in alignment with the theories of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. In essence, this essay unravels the mystery behind the inadequacy of libertarianism in advocating free will while determinism emerges as the most convincing theory.
Indeed, there have been observations that certain decisions and actions carried out by people are determined by forces that are not within human control. This is a determinist point of view and may at times be acute where it is known as hard determinism. The idea is informed from the belief that all actions zero down to a certain cause but there is no specific definition of the causes involved. Various explanations, such as human nature, environment, psychological forces and social dynamics, have been employed to exemplify the determinist view (James, 2008). All these have been judged as influential on how and why people act in certain ways. Determinism also depicts the view that the past or present shapes the future. For instance, an adult’s aggression may be blamed on his or her childhood experiences of aggressive events.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Determinists may also at times take a soft stand that is referred to as compatibilism. Compatibilists, just like hard determinists, concur that there are causes that trigger all events, including human actions (James, 2008). But the compatibilists further argue that if human actions are a result of internal motivation, as opposed to external motivations, the actions can be judged as free. These thinkers also inform that actions that are not determined by external forces are free, while those that are coerced externally are not. For instance, if one chooses to act in alignment with personal principles rather than the society’s norms or stipulations, then that is free will. The implication is that one may end up acting in a way that no one anticipates.
There are certain philosophers, on the other hand, who present the view that humans are capable of making decisions without depending on the influences of their thinking. The idea is furnished by understanding that one may act differently out of free choice, a view that is referred to as indeterminism. While libertarianism has been used synonymously with indeterminism, there is observation that not all indeterminists are libertarians although all libertarians are indeterminists. Indeterminism thrives in the understanding that some of the human actions are not determined, revealing the random nature of such actions (Fischer, Kane, Peerboom & Vargas, 2007). The libertarian views argue that free will exists whereas indeterminist begs to differ with such ideas. For instance, a person may choose to murder another despite the universalism of the right to life. In this light, the choice to murder is free will but in indeterminism terms, the notion of right to life nullifies the free will as the judicial process necessitates action by law.
Existentialism is another philosophical theory that explores the concept of human free will. It is developed from the notion that people exist first and then individuals go through life, making attempts to change their nature or essence. In a nutshell, existentialists engage in self-searching and finding meaning of life through free will, personal choices and individual responsibility. Individuals who identify with this school of thought strive to find out who they are, while making their choices depending on experiences, beliefs and personal outlook. Existentialism further puts forward the belief that people should be compelled to make choices and assume responsibility without the application of laws, traditions or ethnic rules.
William James observed that the concept of freedom may be eulogistic while chance is opprobrious. He argued that determinists were the greatest champions of freedom and argued that hard determinism was old fashioned while soft determinism abhorred harsh words (James, 2008). While agreeing with the existentialists, James is of the opinion that there is need to believe in freedom for the practical purposes of guilt and responsibility. In this light, an individual may, therefore, be at liberty to exercise freedom by acting out of a sense of responsibility and to avoid guilt. James further asserted that the first aspect of freedom involves believing that his will was free. He further attacked compatibilism calling it a quagmire of evasion and held the idea that chance is neither hard nor soft determinism. Parallel to his ideas, claims that free will involved freedom from external forces were dismissed by Immanuel Kant as wretched subterfuge.
In addressing the question of which theory is most convincing, there is the need to look into the applicability of each one of them. Baron d’Holbach took a determinist stance when he made the claim that freedom is a mere illusion. William James and Jean-Paul Sartre, on the other hand, assert that freedom is possible in alignment with indeterminist stand (James, 2008). Compatibilists have also offered their views to point out that the independence of action determines the possibility of freedom. It is, therefore, evident that some theories are not straightforward but are malleable for the purpose of seeking conviction.
Libertarianism tends to look for solace in indeterminism. While there is a close relationship between the two, it has been noted that not all indeterminists are libertarian. The two theories, therefore, are less convincing just as compatibilists tend to come up with conditions that may be adopted for freedom to be achieved (James, 2008). The idea of experiencing some events that may be indeterminate but not libertarian, or the vice versa, yields a major weakness in alignment with libertarianism. William James’ idea that determinism is the champion of freedom thus seems to hold more water. The view that everything has a cause, and probably an effect, makes it more convincing than either libertarianism or compatibilism. For instance, there is always an inquiry when someone commits suicide and dies. Imagining a world where events just occur randomly without associating them to a cause(s) would mean accepting everything at face value. James’ views, therefore, coupled with those of the existentialists that there is need to believe in freedom for the practical purposes of guilt and responsibility, are plausible and may be the best choice in the execution of free will.
References
James, W. (2008). The Dilemma of Determinism. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
Kane, R., Fischer, J. M., Pereboom, D. & Vargas, M. (2007). Four views on free will. Blackwell Publishing.
