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