Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard determinists' are incompatibilists who argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
Libertarians are also incompatibilists. They believe that free will exists and strict causal determinism is false. Their problem is to reconcile free will with chance or indeterminism, which threatens to make actions random.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it implies that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
In Western philosophy
The basic philosophical positions on the problem of free will can be divided in accordance with the answers they provide to two questions:
- Is determinism true?
- Does free will exist?
Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are causally necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, indeterminism, are positions in the debate about free will.
Compatibilism (also called soft determinism) is the view that the assumption of free will and the existence of a concept of determinism are compatible with each other; this is opposed to incompatibilism which is the view that there is no way to reconcile a belief in a deterministic universe with a belief in a concept of free will beyond that of a perceived existence. Hard determinism is the version of incompatibilism that accepts the assumption of determinism and rejects the idea that humans have any free will.
Libertarianism agrees with hard determinism only in rejecting compatibilism. Libertarians accept the existence of a concept of free will along with an assumption of indeterminism to some extent. Some of its proponents reject physical determinism and argue for some version of physical indeterminism that is compatible with freedom;. Others are Metaphysical libertarians who appeal to mind-body dualism to argue a special case for sentient beings.
The truth of determinism has been challenged from the earliest philosophers, notably Epicurus and Lucretius, to the latest theory of quantum mechanics, which postulates irreducible physical indeterminacy.
The standard argument against the existence of free will is very simple. Either determinism is true or indeterminism is true. These exhaust the logical possibilities. If determinism is true, we are not free. If indeterminism is true, our actions are random and our will lacks the control to be morally responsible.
Determinism
Main article: DeterminismDeterminism is a broad term with a variety of meanings. Corresponding to each of these different meanings, there arises a different problem of free will.
Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity may be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.
Logical determinism is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present or future, are either true or false. The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how choices can be free, given that what one does in the future is already determined as true or false in the present.
Theological determinism is the thesis that there is a God who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience or by decreeing their actions in advance. The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free, if there is a being who has determined them for us ahead of time.
Biological determinism is the idea that all behavior, belief, and desire are fixed by our genetic endowment. There are other theses on determinism, including cultural determinism and psychological determinism. Combinations and syntheses of determinist theses, e.g. bio-environmental determinism, are even more common.
Compatibilism
Main article: Compatibilism and incompatibilismCompatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. A common strategy employed by "classical compatibilists", such as Thomas Hobbes, is to claim that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to . Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to the person and not to some abstract notion of will , asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do." In articulating this crucial proviso, David Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains". To illustrate their position, compatibilists point to clear-cut cases of someone's free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or other forms of constraint. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is causally determining the future, but because the aggressor is overriding the victim's desires and preferences about his own actions. The aggressor is coercing the victim and, according to compatibilists, this is what overrides free will. Thus, they argue that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' choices are the results of their own desires and preferences, and are not overridden by some external (or internal) force. To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but only deny that determinism is at odds with free will.
William James' views were ambivalent. While he believed in free will on "ethical grounds," he did not believe that there was evidence for it on scientific grounds, nor did his own introspections support it. Moreover, he did not accept incompatibilism as formulated below; he did not believe that the indeterminism of human actions was a prerequisite of moral responsibility. In his work Pragmatism , he wrote that "instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise" regardless of metaphysical theories. He did believe that indeterminism is important as a "doctrine of relief"—it allows for the view that, although the world may be in many respects a bad place, it may, through individuals' actions, become a better one. Determinism, he argued, undermines meliorism—the idea that progress is a real concept leading to improvement in the world.
"Modern compatibilists", such as Harry Frankfurt and Daniel Dennett, argue that there are cases where a coerced agent's choices are still free because such coercion coincides with the agent's personal intentions and desires. Frankfurt, in particular, argues for a version of compatibilism called the "hierarchical mesh". The idea is that an individual can have conflicting desires at a first-order level and also have a desire about the various first-order desires (a second-order desire) to the effect that one of the desires prevails over the others. A person's will is to be identified with her effective first-order desire, i.e., the one that she acts on. So, for example, there are "wanton addicts", "unwilling addicts" and "willing addicts." All three groups may have the conflicting first-order desires to want to take the drug to which they are addicted and to not want to take it.
The first group, "wanton addicts", have no second-order desire not to take the drug. The second group, "unwilling addicts", have a second-order desire not to take the drug, while the third group, "willing addicts", have a second-order desire to take it. According to Frankfurt, the members of the first group are to be considered devoid of will and therefore no longer persons. The members of the second group freely desire not to take the drug, but their will is overcome by the addiction. Finally, the members of the third group willingly take the drug to which they are addicted. Frankfurt's theory can ramify to any number of levels. Critics of the theory point out that there is no certainty that conflicts will not arise even at the higher-order levels of desire and preference. Others argue that Frankfurt offers no adequate explanation of how the various levels in the hierarchy mesh together.
In Elbow Room , Dennett presents an argum
We Generation :: Free The Children
Have you previously registered as a Youth in Action group or for a Free The Children campaign? * Yes No I'm not sure; 1. Would you like to register as a Youth in Action group?Yes
We Generation :: Free The Children
Welcome! The We Generation is Free The Children's spot for connecting to issues that matter and making positive things happen. A place to get ideas, do research, start that ...
Amazon.com: Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will (9780195189636 ...
Amazon.com: Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will (9780195189636): John Baer, James C. Kaufman, Roy F. Baumeister: Books
We Free Kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We Free Kings is a 1961 LP by jazz multi-instrumentalist Roland Kirk. It sees the group working through a set of bluesy post-bop numbers, including a highly regarded version of ...
We Free Again - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We Free Again is the fourth studio release by American reggae band Groundation. Released in 2004 on Young Tree Records, it is considered the band's breakthrough album.
Amazon.com: We Free Again: Groundation, Apple Gabriel, Don Carlos ...
Songs from this album are available to purchase as MP3s. Click on "Buy MP3" or view the MP3 Album. ...
"We Free Them or They Destroy Us" :: Daniel Pipes
"We Free Them or They Destroy Us" by Daniel Pipes September 13, 2006 updated Sep 23, 2006. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/09/we-free-them-or-they-destroy-us
Are we free yet? — The Dawn Blog » Blog Archive
Readers are encouraged to participate in Dawn.com’s special Independence Day live blog. This blog will be live on August 14, 2009, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. (PST) and then ...
We Free Kings by Rahsaan Roland Kirk - Reviews, tracks, MP3s, credits ...
We Free Kings by Rahsaan Roland Kirk is a version of a studio album, first released 1987. This studio album has 10 tracks including Three for the Festival, Moon Song, A Sack Full ...
We Free Again – Groundation – Listen free and discover music at ...
Listen free to Groundation – We Free Again (Praising, Smile and more). 14 tracks (70:31). We Free Again was released 1 Oct 2005. Groundation is a Fusion-Reggae band based in ...