Arguing for Compatibilism.
The problem of free will is perceived as a long-standing philosophical question that has immensely puzzled most scholars and philosophers for many years. However, the problem of free will revolves around the issue of whether people have the potential to articulate their own choices and decisions. The notion of free will posits that an individual can easily make a choice concerning a particular action acted upon, make assumptions and have the chance to have options about the numerous aspects of life. Tracing back on how philosophical thinkers have presented their ideas, there are some proposed solutions to the problem of free will. As such, the proposed solutions to the problem of free will has both advantages and disadvantages. In the essay, I will provide three solutions to the problem of free will, which include libertarianism, determinism, and compatibilism. Besides, I will make a case for one of the solutions regarding logic, argument, evidence, and analysis. After evaluating all three proposed solutions to the problem, I am confident that compatibilism offers the most appropriate and compelling solution to the problem of free will with philosophical insights.
Hard determinism is one of the proposed solutions to the problem of free will. However, hard determinism perceives a free will that upholds the truthfulness of determinism (Pleasants et al. 6). At this juncture, hard determinism posits that free will does not exist. As such, this solution holds that free will fits to be described as an illusion. Free will being an illusion shows that all the actions and practices of human beings in the universe are all causality influenced by factors such as environment and genetics. Hard determinists are known to be rejecting the issue of free will. The hard determinists claim that the universe exists with formulated laws and policies purposely guiding human beings in their daily. At this point, human beings decide to live against these laws, which directs them to display actions that do not require free will; therefore, all events and practices in the universe are causally inevitable (Pleasants et al. 26). Following the argument of the hard determinists on the rejection of the free will it indicates that they are unethical. This is because their perspective limits human beings’ decisions and choices. In addition, the argument rests on the perspective that holding an individual morally accountable needs them to come [up with a choice of two or more true alternatives.
Regarding the arguments from hard determinists, some strengths and weaknesses can be derived from this proposed free-will solution. The central criticism of hard determinism is moral responsibility(Menges et al. 11). The criticism indicates that humans could be morally irresponsible in their actions and practices and be manipulated by external factors like environment and genetics. Besides moral responsibility, another criticism of hard determinism is that it rejects ethics(Menges et al. 19). Universally, ethics are prioritized in human life because humans can easily differentiate right or wrong. The criticism posits that the proposed solution and reductionists must be more flexible. The proposed solution has various concerns about why human beings are not responsible and accountable. This indicates that people are not responsible for their actions.
On the other hand, there are strengths of hard determinism. For example, it acknowledges that there are causes of human behavior that cannot render them to access free will. Secondly, the solution highlights that God has already decided who will be saved and who won’t.
Libertarianism is the second proposed solution to the problem of free will, which argues that free will is perceived to be logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism posits that agents have free will significantly, and they reject that causal determinism is true (Balaguer et al.66). This proposed solution is important because it maximizes political freedom and autonomy and minimizes and minimizes its encroachment of states. Violation of liberties hence emphasizing the policy of pluralism. Reference to the claims presented by libertarianism indicates that human beings in the universe have the capability of formulating decisions and making choices that are not determined by external factors such as environment and genetics (Balaguer et al. 32). This particular notion delves that human beings are autonomous who have the powers of coming up with their own decisions that are not determined by prior conditions. Libertarianism claims that human beings are mandated to choose what they want and the available alternatives, so respect ought to prevail. The proponents of libertarianism assert that the freedom that human beings in the universe have needs to be acknowledged and promoted in a broader scope.
Criticism is directed to libertarianism as a solution to the problem of free will. Regarding the arguments from libertarians, one of the main criticism is the concern of randomness (Wisniewski et al. 18). This criticism indicates that human beings cannot have control over their actions and choices if they are indeterminate and random; therefore, free will could be reduced to be a simple chance. Another criticism that has been subjected to libertarianism is the luck objection (Wisniewski et al. 25). Based on this particular objection, and it indicates that human actions are crucial facts where they become matters of luck if the actions of human beings are not causally determined. Thirdly complexities to reconcile with the understanding of the universe that largely operates under rules and principles is another criticism that libertinism faces. The criticism indicates the field of science has shed light on disclosing the deterministic principles that rule over the world. From classical to modern quantum mechanics, the understanding of human beings is based on the notion that actions rely on the preceding causes and conform to the laws of the universe.
Besides the criticism that libertarianism faces, this proposed solution has strengths. Firstly, libertarianism provides a chance for moral responsibility (Wisniewski et al. 33). As such, the choices of human beings are affected no how the rules of the universe are violated and what people choose to practice through the use of free will, secondly is that libertarianism provides an opportunity of free will to human beings. Through making choices, freedom has already been unbounded. At this point, human beings can make ethical decisions without the influence of external factors. In addition, libertarianism display questions on the issue of responsibility (Wisniewski et al. 44). However, human beings are responsible for their actions if they are not determined by circumstance or nature. Other questions raised from this proposed solution are how free will connects with the physical world and how individual thoughts affect body movement if deterministic rules do not guide them.
Finally, compatibilism is described as a stance that solves the problem of free will, including determinism. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism cannot be included, and this makes it possible for human beings to have free will despite their actions being determined by external factors like environment and genetics (Zürcher et al. 20). Under compatibilism, free will is compatible and human beings have the freedom to make their own choices. They should be accountable for their actions. However, shreds of evidence and arguments reinforce compatibilism as the compelling solution to the problem of free will. Firstly is the designation of free will whereby compatibilists claim that the specification of free will should rely on the internal mental process that provides a significant chance of decision making (Zürcher et al. 65). For instance, the proponents of compatibilists claim that actions of human beings regard on reasons, beliefs, and intentions. Therefore, it can be perceived to be free. Secondly is empirical evidence whereby various studies posit that perception of the instance of free will can sometimes be an illusion; therefore actions of human beings are manipulated by environment and genetics, including other external factors (Zürcher et al. 69). Also, there are studies which support on the free will and accountability of human beings despite influence from external factors. In addition, there is criticism that compatibilists face, for example, causal determinism. The proposed solution strives to be in terms of forms of determinism, for instance, causal determinism, which indicates that human actions are based on natural laws and previous events.
In conclusion, the problem of free will has brought about various controversies among philosophical thinkers for many years\. However, numerous studies have presented their findings about free will, and philosophers have provided their ideas and perspectives on whether the free will should e mandatory or not. Regarding varying views and evaluating the problem, three proposed solutions can easily settle the problem of free will. Gathering the information and insights from each solution, I can affirm that compatibilism offers a compelling solution despite facing criticism like causal determinism. Compatibilism provides significant insights into how free will is supposed to be. Although other solutions do not recognize the external factors that influence human actions, compatibilism acknowledges the role of external factors like environment and genetics. To recap, the significance of the proposed solutions to the problem of free will depends on the implications they posit regarding understanding the nature of freedom and moral responsibility. The controversy of free will has ethical, practical, and philosophical implications. The implications affect how people are responsible for their actions and moral system.
Works Cited
Balaguer, Mark. “Free Will, Determinism, and Epiphenomenalism.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02623.
Menges, Leonhard. “Free Will, Determinism, and the Right Levels of Description.” Philosophical Explorations, June 2021, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2021.1937679.
Pleasants, Nigel. “Free Will, Determinism and the ‘Problem’ of Structure and Agency in the Social Sciences.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 49, no. 1, Dec. 2018, pp. 3–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393118814952.
Wisniewski, David, et al. “Free Will Beliefs Are Better Predicted by Dualism than Determinism Beliefs across Different Cultures.” PLOS ONE, edited by Jonathan Jong, vol. 14, no. 9, Sept. 2019, p. e0221617, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221617.
Zürcher, Tobias, et al. “The Notion of Free Will and Its Ethical Relevance for Decision-Making Capacity.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, May 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0371-0.
write