The Free Will Debate

Over the course of time people have come to acknowledge and accept that we as humans have the ability to have free will. This goes along with the debate between libertarianism and hard determinism.The argument for  libertarianism is the belief that we as human beings have the ability to control and change our actions relying on our own free will; however, it is not claiming that all actions are free will. On the other hand determinism denies libertarian beliefs sayings that human beings in fact lack free will because of the fact that all of our actions are caused by earlier psychological or physical events.

The premise of the determinism argument makes libertarianism the more plausible side to pick in the debate since libertarianism believes that humans have the ability to think and act for themselves with the acknowledgement that not everything falls under the free will category. It makes more sense in that free will does not eliminate the moral responsibilities people have which is a radical implication.  If people have no free will, then they cannot be blamed for any of their actions and that is something that would cause issues if say for example someone went on a massive killing spree and when put on trial claimed that he was doing these murders against his free will. That would make it a hard call on the jury wouldn't it? That is why claiming that human beings have a moral responsibility to be able to have spontaneous free will or the ability to control their actions and alter the course of their own lives.

Explanatory breadth- Libertarianism explains more of human behavior as opposed to determinism in that people themselves believe that they have free will and they have the ability to think and do things for themselves. Humans tend to be more independant.  

Explanatory depth- Determinism has more explanatory depth since it has a more concrete explanation as far as the causes of human behavior is greater detailer compared to libertarianism since it is based on humans having spontaneous free will and spontaneous actions are not specific enough to be concrete answers compared to the determinist view that humans actions are predetermined due to prior actions. Say for example someone decided to rob a bank, saying they did it because they felt like it does not make as much sense as the fact that people have attempted to rob a bank in the past, giving them to idea of doing it themselves.

Simplicity- The theory that has fewer parts is determinism since it does not have spontaneity along with it which leaves room for other interpretation. With free will having other aspects to it; it becomes unclear and more susceptible to errors along the way.

Conservatism- The theory of libertarianism is more consistent with our common sense. In today’s world more people are straying further away from religious views and leaning more towards scientific explanations. The belief that humans have free will is more widely believed and accepted since it is something people can understand and relate to the fact that they themselves have made their own conscious decisions in life.

1. Libertarianism and Hard Determinism are the most plausible explanations of human action.

2. Libertarianism has much more explanatory breadth and conservatism while Hard determinism has a small advantage in explanatory depth and simplicity.

3. Therefore, Libertarianism is the most likely explanation of human actions since it is a more plausible reason why people act as opposed to something that will leave people without blame.

Free Will

 To this debate there are two sides. Libertarianism and determinism, libertarianism is about humans having spontaneous free will and being able to basically create your own future and taking control of their own lives. Hard determinism is basically saying that humans don't have free will and all of their actions are based on previous psychological and physical events.

Out of these two, I believe that libertarianism is the side to which I’m more lenient to because of what he have accomplished and continue to discover every day. If we were mindless machines with thoughts programmed into our heads we would be just like robots. But no, we have such a great diversity in this world due to us humans having free will and it’s not like someone is telling us to do it, we decide what to do on our own. When we decide to go out for a run, you’re not thinking of step with one foot then the other numerous times, you just do it. We are not programmed and we also always have a choice no matter what, even in a hard scenario, if I was told that I was going to get beat up if I didn’t do their homework, I have various choices, get beat up, do it, stand up and fight him, call someone, etc. We have choices, we are not made to do anything, and we do it through our own consciousness.

Explanatory Breadth: Libertarianism has the most explanatory breadth, this explains how humans act, the reasons why they do good or bad from our actions due to free will. Also explains that involuntary reflexes can’t be controlled, even though we have complete control of ourselves. Determinism can’t even say the reason why, all they say that humans act the way they do because they have no control of their actions, but then can’t explain how he can do something automatically without thinking about it, like how we automatically breathe while we’re sleeping.

Explanatory depth: Libertarianism makes a better argument than determinism, even though they both have explanations. Determinism doesn't really explain with much detail like libertarianism does, it says that they are the cause themselves for their own life and actions due to free will.

Simplicity: Hard determinism has more simplicity because they’re actions are all supposedly predetermined, like their life and thoughts and libertarianism since they do everything without being predetermined have to show and explain why they chose that path.

            Conservatism: Libertarianism would clearly have more conservatism because people today would obviously want to say they have control of their own lives rather than not to and that everything they've done to this point is predetermined.

1. Libertarianism and hard determinism are the most plausible explanations of free will.

2. Libertarianism has more explanatory breadth, depth and conservatism. On the other hand, hard determinism has more simplicity.

3. Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of Free Will.

FREE WILL

If we took a poll from people in today’s world about whether you have “free will” and are able to control your life, the majority of the population would probably agree that they do. That they are able to decide how their life ends up and that they have the ability to make any decision they want too. They would fall under libertarianism. This view states that although external forces have an effect on our actions other decisions come from spontaneous free will. Spontaneous free will is the idea that we can control the things we do in our lives and decide the course of our life. This theory connects well with the ideas of having self-control and maintaining you “free will” to do what you want but I believe that it lacks ideas that hard determinism doesn’t.

Determinism is the theory that in today’s world there is no free will because our actions were all pre planned from earlier events or ideas. In this theory it also has two other ideas that explain it a little more. The first is, Hard Determinism, which states that free will doesn’t exist and neither does moral responsibility. It’s believed that all of our actions were a result of external forces i.e. the way that we were raised by our parents or the type of environment that we grew up in. The second is Soft Determinism, which states that our actions are still caused by external forces but we could have free will because of morality. We can make our own decisions but all our actions are determined in advance.

In my opinion, I believe that hard determinism is more plausible then libertinism in the cause of human actions. In our life today so many things happen without understanding the cause or knowing why we did what we did. We try to justify our actions by stating that “you were taught” or “I experienced this in my life” that made me do what I did. We make all or our actions and ideas from experience even if we think that we came up with them on our own, we wouldn’t know what it was caused by if we hand already had it planned out for us beforehand. Take the idea of wanting to become a famous singer. You believe that it was a spontaneous act of free will on your part to choose this career but in actuality you were taught and pushed into that kind of lifestyle. That whatever you grew up around or were taught by your parents about being famous is what led you to that decision. That whatever even occurred in your life was made by past experiences. I would then also argue that because we lack free will we aren’t morally responsible for the consequences of our actions. That we had no choice in what was occurring therefore we could not be responsible for the actions that we displayed. An example is a man fighting in war. Because they are called in do something that can be considered just but not morally right, we can decide that they had no choice in the event. That whatever events that occurred in their lives doesn’t play a role in them having the free will to kill, but rather they couldn’t pick and choose what ideas they received and had within them.

Explanatory Breadth-   While both ideas seem to explain the types of human behavior, determinism says that “all” actions are caused by earlier events in our lives while libertarianism is stuck behind “some” actions. Determinism doesn’t fail to cover all aspects while libertarianism does.

Explanatory Depth- Determinism can tell you specifically where the cause of each action came from while libertarianism cannot. Simply explaining that spontaneous free will is the ability to control our actions doesn’t mean much when you can’t explain where it’s coming from. The act to choose one idea from the next without a plausible reason for doing so is where the argument for libertarianism fails.  

Simplicity- As I had stated before Determinism states that all actions come from external forces while libertarianism states that some come from external forces while other actions come from our ability to choose. Not having a strong argument that covers all aspects of human actions is the reason why determinism has more of an advantage against libertarianism in simplicity.

Conservatism- I believe that in today’s world most people would believe that they have a choose and are able to decide their fate which is why libertarianism would connect more with today’s society. I think the ideas of both of them would have an even outcome on what people believe but I’m not as confident that many people would want to believe that their life is basically predetermined and would agree with determinism.

 

1. Libertarianism and Hard Determinism are the most plausible explanations of human action.

2. Hard Determinism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, while Libertarianism has an small advantage in conservatism.

3. Therefore, Hard Determinism is the most likely explanation of human actions.

 

Free Will

Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Well there are two sides to free will, libertarianism and hard determinism. There is a big difference between libertarians and determinists.  Libertarianism means that human beings have the ability to control and change their own actions because we have free will. While determinist argue that human beings do not have free will or the ability to control their own actions.

I believe that libertarianism makes more sense. I believe that all human beings should have free will. I agree that as humans we make our own decisions and we can decide what it is we want to do and wish not to do with our lives. We have the ability to control our own actions and change the course of our lives based upon what we want as individuals. As a child we were all taught what’s right and what’s wrong but as we grew we were given the free will to choose whether or not we would go along with any set rules put before us. Therefore, libertarianism is more plausible.

Exploratory Breadth: Libertarianism explains human actions better than hard determinists do. They believe that some behaviors are caused by free will and other behaviors are caused by external forces. Determinist believe that everything is predetermined for us and that everyone doesn’t have the ability to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, libertarianism explains explanatory breadth better then determinism

For explanatory depth, libertarianism has the upper hand. Libertarianism explains that not all actions are made just by choice. A great example of this would be when the man stole bread for his family. The man explained that they were hungry but had no food. On the other hand a determinist would reason that they were forced.

Conservatism of both libertarianism and determinism is really based on your own personal beliefs and how you choose to look at free will.

1. Libertarianism, and determinism are the most plausible explanations of human behavior.

2. Libertarianism has much more explanatory breadth and conservatism, whereas determinism has a little more explanatory depth, and simplicity.

3. Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation of the ultimate causes of human behavior.

Free will debate

              The free will debate is an argument between two sides, one being libertarianism and the other being hard determinism. Libertarianism is the thought that we have the ability to control our own paths in life and can make choices that will impact us differently, believing they have free will. Determinism has a view that is the opposite. They believe that humans lack free will and the ability to control the path of their life. This view says that your future will come from early psychology or physical events.
             I believe that the view of libertarianism is the more accurate of the two. This is because throughout the course of your life you will always be faced with decisions that can change the course of it. If your life had a set course you wouldnt be faced with the life changing decisions that we as humans are everyday. The view of determinism says that everything is set out in your life. If this is true then why are we able to control our futures and mold our own lives by the choices we make.
             Explanatory breadth- The view of hard determinism does not tell us about human life and the choices we are forced to make and the many paths we can take. Libertarianism explains the many behaviors and how people act rather then the determinist view that comes from a psychological standpoint. 
            Explanatory depth- The explanation that libertarianism offers is that we as humans have different behaviors and actions that impact our future. Determinism doesnt explain how we act but says that our life is planned out for us. This view doesnt give us a specific answer about our behaviors and is very vague.
            Simplicity- Hard determinism has the more simplistic view because it says the all our lives are pre-planned for us. On the other hand Liberatarianism says that our choices in life will shape it and the actions we take are random. 
            Conservatism- Today libertarianism is the more commonly believed view of the two. Humans believe that the have the options in life and choices to create their own life rather then have it be predetermined.

1. Libertarianism and hard determinism are the most plausible explanations of Free will.

2.Libertarianism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas Determinism has more explanatory breadth, and more simplicity.3. Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of Free Will

The Free Will Debate

The free will debate focuses on if we as humans have free will.  This debate has 2 sides libertarianism, which states humans do in fact have free will or the ability to control our actions and alter our lives and determinism which says humans do not have free will and all of our actions are predetermined by psychological or physical events.  But determinism or in this case hard determinism falls under very hard criticism because it says that because humans don't have free will they cant be held responsible for their actions.  This lead determinists to consider at third option, soft determinism, this is the belief that we as humans may psychologically think they have free will but in fact all of their actions are predetermined.  This in my opinion is the most plausible option in the debate, all of our actions are predetermined though we may think we have choices we have already determined what we want based on beliefs or on physical actions.  If you think about going out some where to eat, you may think you have free will but based on your beliefs you already have where you want in mind although you might contemplate other choices you know where you are going from the start.

  Exp                  explanitory breath-  the Determinist beliefs explain more types of human behavior they state everything is is determined rather than the libertanists saying that  free will is spontaneous meaning that certain things just happen to be free will.                                                                                                            Explanatory depth- in this case the libertarian belief explains more human actions.  As opposed to the determinists who only believe that human actions are determined, while a liberation think that humans can also act out of free will.                                                                                                                        Simplicity-  the Determinists belief is more simple than libertarian. they believe that humans only act because our beliefs are determined. rather than those who believe that we have spontaneous free will.                                                                                                                                                         Conservatism- through a recent poll we have learned that the belief that humans have free will is more excepted than the belief that everything is determined                                                                 1. Hard determinsm, soft determinism and Libertarianiam are all theories to explain human actions                                                                                                                                                                       2. Soft Determinism has much more explanatory breath and simplicity while liberation beliefs have more explanatory depth                                                                                                                                        3.  therefore soft determinism is the best explanation of human actions 

                                                

2

S

Ex

The Free Will Debate

There are two types of determinists, Hard Determinism is the belief that free will does not exist, and that every action or event can be predicted. They believe that every action or event is the result of another.  Libertarianism is the belief that free will exists and they believe they have the ability to control everything they do.  

I believe that Libertarianism is more plausible than Hard Determination. All people have a choice before they do something, and each choice they make effects their actions but nothing is predicted already. For example a person can choose to be good or a person can choose to be evil. That is something that they decide it is not determined by previous actions or experiences.

Explanatory Breadth- Hard determination could come from either or, it could come from physiological or physical events.  Making it harder for us to understand what point its really trying to make.

Explanatory Depth- Both theories explain were the cause comes from; Libertarianism has two causes were as hard determination only has one. The theories by libertarianism are clearer to understand because we have a better understanding of the causes of human’s actions

Simplicity- Hard determinism is more simple than libertarianism because all their actions are predetermined, Libertarianism on the other hands actions are more spontaneous and we don’t know for sure what they are going to do.

Conservatism- Libertarianism is more common in todays society, not many people are agreeing with hard determinism as much because people aren’t as religious anymore. Most people like to believe they have free will and that they can choose what they do.

1. Libertarianism and hard determinism are the most plausible explanations of Free will.

2.Libertarianism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas Determinism has more explanatory breadth, and more simplicity.

3. Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of Free Will.

Free Will

      Studies have shown that the majority of human beings consider themselves to be somewhat in control of their own lives. They believe that the power of "free will" separates homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom and allows us to make conscious decisions and dictate the course of our lives. This majority opinion falls under the umbrella of Libertarianism. This view states that while some our actions are a product of external forces, i.e reflexes, instincts, etc., others are generated by spontaneous free will. This spontaneous free will is defined as the decisions we make regarding immediate choices, and our life course. While this theory does harmonize well with the sought popular idea of control in one's own life, it is undermined by a more rational and better supported theory 

     Determinism is a theory which denies the existence of free will as we understand it today, and within this determinist view we have two major, if not competing ideas. The first, hard determinism, denies the existence of all free will, and subsequently, moral responsibility. All actions of a human being are a result of external forces, whether they are the way we were raised or the environment we live in, etc. The second, soft determinism, maintains that all human actions a result of external forces, but attempts to preserve morality by redefining free will. According to soft determinists, free will is a product of our beliefs or ideas, in other words, internal motives. While these motives are programmed into us through life experiences and other events outside of our control, we are still responsible for their effects. 

     I would argue that hard determinism best explains the origin of the actions of man. Every event in our lives is a product of something beyond our control and we have no real spontaneous power of them, even if we perceive that we do. Take, for instance, the decision of a man to become a politician. He may have some revelation late in life that causes him to pursue a career in government. This may seem like a truly spontaneous act of free will, but it must be understood that this decision came about through external forces. This could mean the lessons he was taught by his mother as a young boy, or an event in his life which struck him as unjust. In any event, he is pulled, or rather, pushed into his decisions by his life's history. I would further argue that this absence of free will negates the existence of moral responsibility. There are more obvious actions of man which we deem to be morally responsibility, or morally "neutral", because the participant seemingly had no choice. For example, killing in war is seen by our society as unfit for judgement because the perpetrator had no choice in the event. This is fair, but it must be understood that due to the external forces on one's life, there is no action, morally good or bad, that is a true spontaneous act of free will. This includes actions done as a result of beliefs or ideas. We do not determine what beliefs or ideas are programmed into our heads, and therefore have no responsibility regarding the consequences of them. -Explanatory Breadth- While hard determinism and libertarianism both seem to explain the same range of actions, determinism is not hindered by the phrases "some" and "others." It instead asserts that "all" actions are predetermined and therefore carries a weight which a joint theory such as libertarianism can not. Yet, in truth, they both cover a similar breadth.

-Explanatory Depth- It is extremely difficult to identify the origin of spontaneous free will as the libertarians see it. This is the single greatest flaw in their argument. Without a firm understanding of what generates human free will in an otherwise mechanized world, it is difficult to argue for the existence of choice. Determinists on the other hand, could theoretically pinpoint the cause of each action of man.

-Simplicity- Once again, the determinist argument has an advantage over libertarians when it comes to simplicity. While the libertarians argue that some acts are a result of human choice, and others of external forces, determinists simplify the argument by stating that all actions are a result of external force. This "all" is an incredible benefit when trying to simplify an argument. 

-Conservatism- While a recent study done by the New York Times showed the majority of people in the world to be libertarians, or at least believe in free will, I think it would fluctuate depending on the sample group and that the world's population is split relatively evenly. 

1. Libertarianism and Hard Determinism are the most plausible explanations of human action.

2. Hard Determinism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, while Libertarianism has a small advantage in conservatism.

3. Therefore, Hard Determinism is the most likely explanation of human actions. 

Free Will Debate

            The free will debate is a dispute between one side on libertarianism and the other side is hard determinism. Libertarianism believes that they have the ability to control and change their actions; they have free will. However, hard determinism focuses on the belief that human beings lack free will because our actions come from early psychological and or physical events.

            In my opinion I believe that libertarianism is more plausible than hard determinism.  In your life, you are forced to make your own decisions. Everything you do is done because you have the ability to pick rather everything is predetermined for you. If everything is predetermined for you it then you never know what you’re expecting. Overall, I believe that everyone makes their own decisions because they want their future to be in their hands rather relying on fate to lead them in the right direction.

            Explanatory breadth- Libertarianism explains more about human behavior than hard determinism. For instance, the belief of libertarianism humans are in control of what they want and it’s more direct in what they want. It explains more about their behavior unlike hard determinism because they believe it come from psychological or physical events, but it’s not as sure as libertarianism.

            Explanatory depth- in both theories they explain where the causes come from. However, libertarianism does a better job in better job explaining the cause. For libertarianism they themselves are the cause of their behavior because they control their life and their decisions. Where as determinism tells where the behavior comes from either psychological or physical events, but its vague and doesn’t give an exact answer.

            Simplicity- Hard determinism is more simplicity because all their actions are predetermined. Where as libertarianism actions are spontaneous; they have to explain why they choice to do so. 

            Conservatism- In today’s society, libertarianism is more common than hard determinism.  People are more in control with their life and plan what they want to do. Rather than follow the hard determinism belief of allowing fate and other events to be the path you follow.

1.)  Libertarianism is more plausible explanations of free will.

2.)  Libertarianism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas hard determinism has a little more simplicity, and Libertarianism and hard determinism have both explanatory breadths.

3.)  Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation of free will.

Free Will Debate

             The free will debate is a very old debate on what is the true cause of human actions and do humans actually have the freedom to determine their destiny or is everything predetermined? There are essentially three very different approaches to this debate. One side of the debate includes Libertarianism. Libertarians believe that human beings have moral responsibility and are capable of "spontaneous free will" and are able to alter their lives and can make decisions without any pre-determined responsibility to commit a certain action. According to the view of libertarians, essentially what makes actions free is them being constituted of in-deterministic natural events. Another side of the debate includes Hard-Determinism. Hard-determinists argue that human beings lack free will because all of our actions are produced from early psychological and or physical events. These form of determinists disregard free-will and moral responsibility and argue that every human action and decision is inevitable and follows a sense of antecedent sequence of events. The other side of the free will debate is another form of determinism known as compatibilism or "soft-determinism". Soft-determinists essentially redefine our standard idea of "free will" which is basically "spontaneous actions" and include the idea of moral responsibility which hard-determinists leave out of their argument. According to soft-determinists we have free will with the deterministic view still in place, the re-defined definition of free will according to soft-determinists is that as long as someone is able to commit an action on their own without any external causes forcing them to commit that action, it is free will. This concept of free will allows moral responsibility still able to be in place but also the idea that our actions are pre-determined due to previous psychological or physical events.
              In my opinion, I believe soft-determinism is the most plausible side of the free-will debate. Soft-determinists agree with the deterministic view which I find most viable in today's society but also don't forget to include moral responsibility which I believe is an important aspect of the free will debate. What is key to soft-determinism is re-defining the idea of "free will" and dissecting the idea of what free will truly means. According to the soft-determinists free will is a concept that means the person committing the "free act" knows he is committing the act and is not being forced by something external that would otherwise make the person commit a different act. The deterministic side of soft-determinists agrees with the fact that we are essentially "pre-programmed" to make certain decisions/actions due to previous psychological or physical events. Spontaneous actions just does not seem like a plausible cause of our actions which libertarians argue is what free will is but soft-determinists disagree and provide the deterministic view to challenge that argument. The moral responsibility part of soft-determinism comes along with the re-defining of free will; because free will is no longer "spontaneous actions"...people still have moral responsibility because even though they don't really have control over their decisions/actions...they are still the one's committing the action and are able to take moral responsibility for their committed action.

               Explanatory Breadth - Soft-determinism explains more types of human behavior than libertarianism but equal in explaining different types of human behavior as hard-determinism. Libertarianism basically just says that some human actions are spontaneous and we have control over what actions we commit and what we don't, but the idea of spontaneous actions with no cause is a bit murky and doesn't really explain all other actions that we commit. Soft-determinism and the general deterministic view explains that all human actions have causes, whether it be previous psychological events or previous physical events.

               Explanatory Depth - Soft-determinism explains more in-depth on human behavior than both libertarianism and hard-determinism. Libertarianism addresses the natural reaction behavior like reflexes and stuff like that but when it comes to other actions it explains the actions as "spontaneous free will actions." which is very vague and doesn't really dig down into why the actions occur, they just say that the actions do occur due to some form of "free will". Hard-determinists agree with soft-determinists in the fact that all human behaviors(actions, decisions) are pre-determined but disregards the idea of free will and argues that there is no moral responsibility involved with actions. On the contrary, soft-determinists go indepth enough to redefine the concept of free will to fit the deterministic view as well as being able to tie in moral responsibility to actions because of the redefining of free will.

             Simplicity - Libertarianism has less parts or assumptions than hard-determinism and soft-determinism due to the fact that libertarians argue that human beings have free-will but the explanation of free-will includes the idea of "spontaneous actions" and doesn't really go much farther in explaining human decisions and actions. Hard-determinism is a bit more complex because it goes on to say that all human actions are pre-determined by previous physical or psychological events and is more clear in explaining the why our behaviors and actions occur rather than a simple "random" action claim. Also, soft-determinism goes more in depth than that not only claiming that our actions are pre-determined, but it ties in the idea of moral responsibility as well as redefining free will and including free will in the argument.

              Conservatism - Soft-determinism and Libertarianism are more consistent with our beliefs because the idea of having free will with our actions. Both of these sides of the free-will debate claim that free-will is present in our actions, even though they both have different definitions of free will. I believe people these days want to believe they have control over their actions and don't essentially want to believe that they have no control over their destiny. Soft-determinism I believe would be more consistent with every-day scientists and more logical thinking people because it does claim that actions are pre-determined but ties in the idea of free will and moral responsibility. Libertarianism would most likely be more consistent with your every day person due to the popular definition of "free will" which is essentially "spontaneous actions". Hard-determinism isn't likely to be as popular due to the lack of free will and moral responsibility aspect of the argument.


1. Soft-determinism, Libertarianism, and hard-determinism are the most plausible explanations of human actions.
2. Soft-determinism has much more explanatory depth where as Libertarianism has more simplicity, and soft-determinism and hard-determinism have equal amounts of explanatory breadth, and Soft-determinism and libertarianism are more conservative.
3. Therefore, Soft-determinism is the most plausible cause of human actions.

Free Will Debate

The free will debate is a conflict between two  sides, libertarianism and hard determinism.  The libertarianism idea believes that  people have free will and have a choice in the actions they make and choose they're own path in life.. The hard determinism idea believes that people have no free will and no moral responsibility. Determinism believes that the actions we choose to make come from our past psychological and physical events.

In my belief libertarianism is more plausible than hard determinism. Every choice a person makes affects their future and even if they tend to do one action rather than another based on their passed expieriences it is still their own choice at the end. Our expieriences from our past have an influence on our decisions but we have the final say on what that action will be.

Explanatory Breadth- Both libertarianism and hard determinism explain why we choose to do certain actions.  Some people make certain bad choices because they want to and others, like young  children or people with mental illnesses, make them because they don't know any better and dont understand the consequences.

Explanatory depth- Although the idea that events in our lives cause us to do certain actions is somewhat true, hard determinists overlook the fact that we have the final choice. Even if from past expierience we lean on a certain action more than another we can always choose what goes against our past expierience.

Simplicity- Hard determinism has more simplicity. Those who agree with hard determinism just have to say that an action some one has made was already made for them and that they had no free will in their choice. Those who agree with libertarianism have to go in depth and explain why a person chose to do something and what made them chose it.

Conservatism- Libertarianism is more conservative that hard determinism. More people believe that they make their own decisons and that there isnt any other factor but their ownself in the decisions they choose to make. People like to believe that they have the ability to control their own lives.

1.     Libertarianism and Hard Determinism are the most plausible explanations of free will.

2.      Libertarianism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas Determinism has more simplicity, and Libertarianism and Determinism both have explanatory breadth.

3.     Therefore Libertarianism  has more free will

Free Will Debate

There are two sides to the free will debate; one being the determinists which are people who think that your life is predetermined from birth and you have no control to alter your future, while the libertarians think that we have complete free will with our decisions, taking into consideration external causes such as, your environment.  

For this debate i take the side of the libertarians because it is more reasonable. To think that your destiny is permanent from birth just seems too surreal. Determinists would argue that your DNA predetermines your future and your life only has a single path to go through while in fact they're wrong; all it does is help mold your future, not give you single path. In life you always have choices, you always have multiple paths to choose. For example, i could have chosen not to study for a recent math exam, but i did and its the fact that i had a choice proves the libertarian side of the debate truthful.

Explanatory breadth- Libertarians win the category of explanatory breadth because there are more theories on their side explaining human behavior more. W. T. Stace proves this by giving examples of human behaviors and how we have and make different choices.
Explanatory depth- Both sides of the debate are at a tie in this category because they equally give each other detail.
Simplicity- Determinists win this category because all they have to say is that everything is predetermined, that's it, while libertarians have to explain things like spontaneous acts and why they exist.
Conservatism- Libertarians win this one because the libertarian view sides with most religions, which most people in the world posses faith in some type of godlike being(s).

1. Libertarianism and determinism are the most reasonable explanations of free will
2. Libertarianism have more Explanatory breadth and Conservatism while determinism has more simplicity and both are equally tied in explanatory depth.
3. Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation of free will.

The Free Will Debate

The free will debate pits the idea of libertarianism versus hard determinism; these ideas that translate into whether we as humans have the free will to make choices to alter our life, with some effects being caused by outside sources, or if all of the choices we make are caused by outside sources (environment, upbringing, unconscious decision, etc).

In my opinion, libertarianism is much more accurate and believable than hard determinism.  Even though circumstance, condition, or consciousness will inevitably have an impact on some of the choices we make, we still without a doubt have the ability to make our own decisions.

Explanatory breadth: I believe there is equality between libertarianism and hard determinism in this case.  Both can shed some reason into how humans make choices.  For example, people in this world do very bad things.  Sometimes, people do these things because they have mental problems, so determinism would better explain in that case.  Others, though, simply do bad things because they can and want to, and this can be explained by either idea.
Explanatory depth:  Hard determinists would argue that we are preprogrammed to have a certain side, good or bad, and that we do not choose.  Without the choice to choose to be good or bad, it takes away the free will aspect, and therefore ethics and morality.  Libertarianism is much better at explaining the causes of human action, because it keeps the ability to choose available, therefore giving us more explanations for what happens.
Simplicity: Hard determinism is much simpler than libertarianism because it rules out spontaneity.  Spontaneity is inexplicable, and never consistent.  Hard determinism has fewer parts to it and makes less assumptions because it is the idea that you act on how you were raised what you experienced, and does not concern itself with the idea that we can spontaneously feel like doing something inconsistent with our personality or usual actions.
Conservatism:  Libertarianism is definitely the more popular belief in today's society.  Especially with the growing movements for people to empower themselves and take control of their lives, which shuts down determinism, we have become a society that does not like to think that we are not in control of our own lives.

1. Libertarianism and hard determinism are the best explanations for human actions.
2. Libertarianism has more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas hard determinism has more simplicity.  Libertarianism and hard determinism have very close amounts of explanatory breadth.
3. Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation for human actions.

Free Will Debate

The Free Will Debate

The question here is: What are the ultimate causes of human actions? Looking from the standpoint of what is called a “Determinist” our actions are strictly dependent upon outward forces, either by the environment in which one lives or by the physical world. On the other hand “Libertarians” argue that while some of our actions are generated from experience, others are also dictated by free will. One would define free will as, simply, the ability to make our own choices and to write our own lives.  Additionally there are two types of Determinists. A hard determinist does not believe, whatsoever, that moral responsibility and “free will” exists. Then there is soft determinism (or compatablism) that says moral responsibility does exist, however, and just attempts to redefine free will. Free will now does not mean spontaneity, but merely that one’s actions can be caused by internal psychological states. Human beings could have free will even though all their actions are completely determined in advance. It is kind of like the illusion of free will. You think you made that choice, but in reality external forces preprogrammed those beliefs and desires.

                In the modern world I believe that determinism offers the most plausible explanation for the cause of human actions, as well as having the most explanatory depth in the debate. Though I would bend more towards soft determinism. Explanatory depth is basically looking at which theory offers the deepest and most multifaceted account of human behavior. Although libertarianism does have more of an intricate definition. They say that while some actions are from experience there are also some that derive from free will, while determinists simply say that all actions are prewired. However determinism, besides the fact it is split into two extremes (hard and soft), offers a more detailed explanation. When accepting libertarianism one must also accept there is some sort of supernatural force, a “god” or a “spirit” that allows for free will. That belief then blankets the rest of their explanations for human action. It is a little frightening to think that we do not have any control over our actions that it why I am more leaned towards soft determinism. One may say that if we did not have any free will then we would not be able to control what comes out of our mouth per say.  But, according to soft determinism, we do have a level of free will. Just all past influences in our lives combined with science (evolution, psychology, physics, etc.) provide in depth explanations for why we do what we do. For example, chemical imbalances in the brain may cause a person to be depressed and kill themselves or a serial killer may murder due to lack of a proper education and a past of violence in their family. Furthermore in order to disprove the liberalist claim that the vary base of our existence is based upon randomness, Determinist's go even further in order to explain our bodies with Quantum Physics. There is no actual evidence of randomness at the atomic level, in fact there is an explanation for everything that goes on atomically and molecularly. Libertarians, when they then point out that some aspects of nature are random rather than determined, are mistaken.

                When talking about explanatory breadth, I would say, libertarianism and determinism are equal. In other words they both cover a large range of explanations. When asked what is the cause of human actions libertarianism has an answer for everything-it was free will, we decided for ourselves, except for the question why is everything in nature orderly, predicatble? Why does everything make sense. Determinism however also fails to address one major question: If humans do not dicatate the results of their actions than who has the right to punish you for your actions (for example, murder)?

                Furthermore, when addressing which side of the debate is complex than the other, determinism is far more detailed. Libertarianism makes much fewer assumptions on the cause of human actions. It simply states humans have the ability to control and change our actions. Determinism’s concept is not only more intricate (with the inclusion of science) but it also has two differing branches: hard and soft. So libertarianism is more simplistic in that it covers a wide range of explanations in short where determinism is kind of still developing and growing as science grows.

                Which then brings us to conservatism-which theory most agrees with current beliefs? Overall I believe that determinism does, however I do think that libertarianism is more popular in mainstream society. Who wants to believe that we do not actually control our actions? That we are sort of robotic monkey’s that are products of nature and predisposition? Who is going to accept that murders are not actually responsible for what they have done, rather it was just a matter of time. Determinism explains almost everything that happens in the natural world (evolution, quantum mechanics, mathematics), it is logic. So determinism is the most conservative in the philosophical and scientific eye.

       1. Determinism and Libertarianism are the most plausible explanations of free will

       2.   Determinism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism whereas libertarianism has more  simplicity. They both have equal explanatory breadth.

       3. Therefore, determinism is the best explanation of free will