Kant Essay, Research Paper

Free Will By Jeffrey Shamberger Analyzing our individual free will can be very intriguing and can almost reach the point of being paradoxical. Ultimately, free will determines the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. Obviously, if outside forces determine our choices, we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if our choices are made with total freedom than certainly we must claim responsibility for our choices and actions. The readings I chose offered two quite opposite theories on individual human freedom, determinism vs. existentialism. In comparing these two theories the contrasts are quite outstanding. Evidently, some philosophers felt that human beings did not really have a free will. This view, defined as determinism held that certain casual laws rule what occurs in the universe. There are two major forms of determinism, including hard determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism taught that each of our actions is determined by factors beyond our control such as heredity and environment. From this point of view there can be no real moral responsibility for our actions if our actions were determined by factors beyond our control. There is a complete denial of personal free will in hard determinism. Soft determinism, however, appears to combine determinism and free will. It teaches that all human actions are determined by such things as early childhood experiences thus relinquishing us from total responsibility for our actions caused by such determining factors. However, if my actions were the result of my own reasoning exclusive of outside factors than I must take responsibility for my choices. In total contrast with determinism, existentialism professes the complete freedom of the human being. The particular reading I read dealt with atheistic existentialism, this view of personal freedom rejected a belief in God, feeling that it would be incompatible with the uncertainty and harsh reality of life during the time of two wars. This view shared that a person was not ruled by heredity or environment but was always free at any time to make his own choices. Due to the denial of God, this theory held that there were no existing moral laws, thus, individuals were free to determine their own human nature through choices for which they stand accountable (existentialism, in general, emphasizes what makes each life a unique personal experience as opposed to any existing moral laws). “Authentic” living involves free choices that allows the individual to become his own person. The big difference between existentialism and the previously discussed views is the emphasis on the freedom of the person to do and be anything with no limits and all choices are free. Any attempt to avoid freedom of choice would be considered “bad-faith”, or living in an inauthentic way. Examples of this would be saying that we could not help ourselves or that we are not really responsible for what we did thus placing responsibility on someone or something else. Existentialism cannot include “groupthink”, which includes large organizations such as church. If you belong to a church, there are some moral issues you must believe in and some you should not. The same is true for memberships in groups and gangs. To commit to such circumstances would be acting in “bad-faith”. Furthermore, love automatically would put a person in “bad-faith”. This is because once we are in love we might modify our opinions and actions as a way to insure we don’t lose our loved one or ones. An authentic existence would be impossible if we had to check our actions against the imagined judgement of the person who fulfills our need for true love. Obviously, a huge contrast exists between determinism and existentialism. After much contemplation, I personally would have to place my opinion of individual free will to the left of soft determinism and to the right of existentialism. I have come to this conclusion because of a few definate beliefs I would have to consider. I personally believe in God, who I believe represents all that is good in people. I also believe that early childhood experiences and heredity factors such as personality can have an influence on the choices we make. Our choices are generally made out of love or fear. As we mature, hopefully, we can sift through our influences and sort out the love or fear involved in our choices. Ultimately, I feel that although there can be many circumstances that interfere with our choices and actions we all have the power to make choices for ourselves and learn from those choices. This could be why God gave us, human beings, the precious gift of our own free will.

The Free Will Of Humans You said, to have free will, you need choices, each one being avoidable. Yes. OK, I know that omniscience is incompatible with free will if you have omniscience yourself, but how does that interfere with the free will of humans? All right, the infallible knowledge of the future by any being, it doesn’t matter who has it, implies that the future exists. Because it is known to exist. Yes. So, assuming you are referring to an omniscient creator of humans, and ignoring that impossibility, it means everything we, as humans do, every choice we make is known to happen before we even do it. We are predetermined? Very much. Who makes our choices then? OK, start at the beginning. As the legend is told, we were created by an omniscient being who gave us free will. To have free will, we need to have choices, each one being avoidable and they have to be made by us, nobody else. Reasonable explanation. Any choice that is made, has to be made at the time we do it ourselves, which is when we are conscious. Why? Choices have to be made by someone, or they are not choices or conscious decisions, and if we do not do them, and the action still exists, someone else did. OK. My point here is that if the choices were known before, say, we were born, then they already existed before we had the ability to have the choice. Fate decided our choices. Let’s say there is an omniscient being who created us with a fate not decided by her. I think I see what you mean. It still works out the same. If the fate wasn’t decided by her, then there must have been a point where she did not know the fate of us, hence contradicting her very omniscience. She knows everything, therefore she cannot be ignorant of the choices we make, before our fate is chosen. Fair enough, so who chose our fate? Isn’t it obvious? If you set out to create something knowing the infinite possibilities how it may be created, and you choose one in particular, then all fate was decided by you. You could have chosen to select another possibility, but you didn’t! Very well. Free will also implies that we are independent individuals. To really have free will, nothing can restrict our ability to choose. If I choose to jump over a sky scraper, I can’t do it because of my nature. We are restricted by our environment. Yes. But, we can choose things that aren’t restricted to the environment. What? We choose to imagine anything we want to. We have the ability to choose to believe or not to believe, to love or not to love. So this implies that our mind’s free will is existing beyond our physical environment. Like I said before, the choice has already been known, hence made by something else before you made it yourself. OK, so what are the conditions for us to have free will with a creator? The conditions? Well, I know what condition the creator must not have – omniscience!! Very well. You said before that it doesn’t matter who has omniscience, we do not have free will. That is because our path is already set. There is no need to know who, or what made the choices, because we know it wasn’t us. What implications does this have? The implications are disastrous that omniscience and free will are impossible. Take your example, an omniscient creator who is supposed to give us free will. Some legends have it that the same creator exists as also omnibenevolent, omnipotent, all loving and perfectly just individual. How is it disastrous? The existence of evil and omnibenevolence. It would totally shatter this legend. I already have. I think you mean the Judaeo-Christian god. I’ll let you decide. In conclusion, omniscience and free will are impossible together. Omniscient creators cannot, by any means, grant free will to her creations. So, if someone you know holds this belief that we have free will by an omniscient creator, then you can, with all confidence, tell this person that they are mistaken.