Allyssa Hutchings Philosophical Paper Assignment

PHIL 1000-025 November 25, 2013

What is free will? Many would define free will as ones ability to make his or her own choices. It is literally defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God. This paper will discuss the different philosophical views of free will, and how in some cases, we may not have the freedom choice that we have always believed we had. Free will is an extremely important concept for individuals as well as for society as a whole, as it plays a major role in justice and morality. It is directly connected to things like responsibility, virtue, and blame. Without the freedom of choice, we a as a society have no right to determine that a person has done anything immoral or unjust. If we didnt have free will , then someone who has raped a child cannot be prosecuted because he or she didnt do it by his or her own choice. With that being stated, it is important to further define the philosophical problems of free will. One problem with free will is seen within theology. God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If this is true, then God is all-knowing. If God is all-knowing, then he knows all future events including choices that we have not yet made. If God knows all future events, then all of our actions are necessary and we cannot choose anything other than that which he already knows. If this is the case, then how can we say that we have the freedom of choice? Even though we feel like were making our own choices and we feel as if we have everything within our own control, our individual paths can only follow one direction because this all-knowing God knows what we will do. Therefore, believing that there is an omniscient

God is incompatible with believing that we have free will and that the only way we can accept that we have free will is to deny that God is omniscient. This is a possible solution, but not a very favorable one since most believers in deity would like to believe in both an omniscient God and in free will. Another problem with free will involves the philosophical theory of determinism. In philosophy, determinism is defined as the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens (Merriam-Webster). In other words, determinism means that past events bring about all future events. If this is the case, then all events are predetermined by past events and the future may not go any other way. Indeterminism, on the contrary, is a concept that states that all events are not caused by previous events and relates future events more-so to random chance. In either instance, free will is undermined. Joe Campbell describes the problem of free will simply and adequately in his book, Free Will as follows: 1. If determinism is true, then no one has free will. 2. If indeterminism is true, then no one has free will. 3. Therefore, no one has free will. If determinism is true, free will cannot exist because our future is completely unavoidable due to past events. If indeterminism is true, then we are admitting that the future is at least partly credited to random chance which relinquishes our control. Even more conflicting, any event can be labeled as either determinism or indeterminism and in either instance we face the challenge of stating that free will exists.

One compelling argument to this dilemma of determinism and free will was given by philosopher William James. James argues that if determinism is correct, there is no point to have feelings of regret because determinists have no grounds for regretting anything. In relating determinism and feelings to a hypothetical murder, James says The judgment of regret calls the murder bad. Calling a thing bad means, if it means anything at all, that the thing ought not to be, that something else ought to be in its stead. Determinism, in denying that anything else can be in its stead, virtually defines the universe as a place in which what ought to be is impossible (Soccio). In other words, in order to have the feelings of regret that we have when we are exposed to bad situations we would be going against determinism which in turn would allow us to have free will. Although William James offered this fascinating view on the dilemma of determinism, there are some flaws in his argument that must be addressed. The problem with this solution is that there is much room for opinion and questioning. James is basing his argument off of feelings and emotion, which may vary from person to person. He insists that we have an unshakable sense of moral right and wrong, but morality is not always as simple as right and wrong. It is certainly not a scientific argument, although it is an argument that can satisfy ones needs to fully believe in free will. Free will is a topic that has many different approaches, views, and opinions. It is also a concept with many philosophical problems and arguments. Without believing in the freedom of choice, we would have no basis for morality or justice. Free will is something that every person needs for inner peace and well-being, and it is something that cannot be taken away from us whether we believe in its truth or not.

Works Cited

Caouette, Justin. "The Free Will Problem." A Philosophers Take. N.p., 13 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. "Free Will in Theology." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. "Free Will." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. "The Pragmatist: William James." Archetypes of Wisdom. Eighth ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 438-39. Print.