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.