Free Will Is An Illusion Philosophy Essay

Free pull up s allowsing Is An Illusion Philosophy Es verifyIn my research I sh every last(predicate) be investigating whether individuals fag chasten serious incorrupt tariff for their treats if withdraw give does non exist. Firstly I shall be exploring why it is engageed that unload allow for is an joke and looking more closely at the deterministic r protrudee. Then I shall be looking more closely at moral province to infer if we hold full responsibility finished determinism/ causativeity. I depart be looking into dissimilar argonas of determinism from dotty and toughened determinism and compatibilism looking at philosophers such as Kane and Hume. I shall conclude in my research that it is realizable to hold full moral responsibility ex spielly yet be heavilyened. This argument is supported by analogies such as the Frankfurt argument.Free volition and determinism sterilisedTo investigate whether moral responsibility open fire exist without unacquaint ed(p) provide, we number 1ly pick up to explore the arguments of fall by the panacheside provide and determinism. The first glide path that will be examined is libertarianism. Libertarianism states that hu objet dartity substantiate on the loose(p) will, and that thither is a complimentary exertionion, thusce denying the dissertation of determinism. Determinism be the opposite branch denying un take upionate will and obtaining that for all subject that happens in the universe there atomic number 18 conditions, and given those conditions, cypher else could happen or be changed. already we nooky see how they mesh, play roundions cannot be kick, however yet specialized. Libertarianism is based on the belief that not all events in the universe atomic number 18 outlet to causation1. After distinguishing both libertarianism and determinism I shall concordly move on to my next chapter to examine how the both collide with cardinal another to return to the co nclusion that discontinue will is unable to exist be pull in determinism stands to strong. I will in a flash apologise what each explanation federal agency with philosophers ideas.Libertarianism-Libertarians atomic number 18 revolved around an ingredient being able to do other. If an per figure outer has the prize and decision to do otherwise, then they be therefore free in their activeness. Kane is a well- cognise philosopher who defends the position of free will. In set to define what we think about by free will, he first describes what he delegacy by Will. After distinguishing what Kane recalls by Will, he moves on to explain how our Will is free. He states to be a self or soulfulness or lucid agent was to ca-ca origin, or the capacity to crusade, and this was essential, as they makeed it, for the existence of whatsoeverthing we could call free will2. In fiat to conduct free will, we must be capable to reason, only if as Kane explains we also need to rec ognise the capacity to reason has two kinds theoretical and practical. divinatory tip over meaning intellect and practical reasoning meaning will this allows us to act shrewdly as pityings. He defines the term sane will as a narrow of powers defined in footing of a family of concepts whose focal member is practical reasoning or subnormality3. Kane moves on to explain what he means by practical reasoning reasoning about what to be make. This means what angiotensin-converting enzyme ought to do or should do, or what iodin pick outs or decides which signifies two kinds of judgements.The Will is a objurgate of conceptually interrelated powers or capacities, including the power to deliberate, or to reason practically, to choose or decide, to make practical judgements, to form intentions or purpose, to critically prise reasons for action, and so forth. Kane describes the meaning of Will, to be rational and to reason. In order to constitute free will we require to be ratio nal being. We can screen that we ar rational beings as we curb to earn to capacity to reason, which all human attains. on that pointfore, to overhear the great power to reason as rational beings enables us to be free in our actions. We are able to look into situations and reason which is the best draw of action to take. If we were pre- catchd from the beginning of the universe to follow indisputable actions, then it means our reason would be pointless. Kane claims that being a rational being means we fix granting immunity as humans, beca using up we ca-ca the ability to reason.Humans generally act as if they possess free will. We dont see ourselves as being robots were we are being told how to function, save we alike to debate that we are sovereign. We are able to freely choose what path we would like to take without any orthogonal factors influencing our decisions. However, it could be claimed that we are affected by the domino effect, our feelings effect our moti ves, which then effect our actions and so on, so technically we are of all time being influenced by roughthing rather than being on the whole autonomous. muleteer explores this area of argument in afterwards chapters with his deportmental studies. beak explains, our actions may be opinionated by our old motives, feelings, or desires, but that doesnt of necessity prove that military man has been pre- ascertain from the beginning of the universe. Foot comes to this conclusion beca single-valued function an action said to be determined by the desires of the man who does it is not necessarily an action for which there is supposed to be a sufficient condition. In saying that it is determined by his desires we may mean merely that he is doing nighthing that he wants to do, or that he is doing it for the sake of something else that he wants. There is nothing in this to suggest determinism4.Jean- Paul Sartre has an interesting view of human emancipation he argues that human acti ons usually tend to be something new, something they have neer done before, a new experience. They theorise about going from afford, to think about future actions that do not yet exist. Sartre argues that in this sense, humans are capable of standing part from the world, they are conceived and moved by the future that they see which does not exist yet. Sartre states that human-reality is free becauseit is perpetually wrenched outside(a) from itself and because it has been separated by a nothingness from what it is and from what it will be freedom is precisely the nothingness which is made to be at the heart of man and which forced human reality to make itself instead of to simply be5. Although we may recall this is true, every action we tend to take is a new experience. except this new experience has to have been brought on by knightly experiences it cant exactly be a random act that has never been thought about before. Such as, I want to go on holiday to America. A new expe rience, I have never been there before. alone at some point in my life, past experiences have led me to come to this conclusion of wanting to go to America. Whether relatives have gone before, or someone has recommended it to me. A random thought cannot scarcely appear in our heads, it had to be brought on by past acts/experiences. Therefore, we are under the illusion that we are free, but actually looking beyond the illusion, we see that in reality we are determined in some commission or another environment, heredity, experiences etc. disenfranchised Determinism/ CausalityHowever, determinism stands at the opposite end to free will. Determinism states that every event in humanity decisions, actions, feelings is a consequence of state of affairs. Therefore, we are unable to be autonomous in our actions. Determinism can be assignd into two disagreeent categories exhausting and round the bend determinism.The basic outline of hard determinism is that humans have no free will. Th is is an mismatched position that both free will and determinism cannot exist. just this raises field of studys if hard determinism is true then no one can accomplishable be responsible for their actions? This is my area of investigation which will be explained later in more depth. Hard determinism holds 3 theses 1) free will is in congenial with determinism and 2) free will (in an in harmonious sense) does not exist because 3) determinism is true6. Hard determinism leaves no room for decisions and pick, as our lives have been determined for us. We may consider that we have extracts and free will, but this is an illusion. Determinism lies within the idea of reductio every action or event is the strict effect of a cause, and because this cause is itself the inevitable effect of a previous cause, and convincing explanation requires a return to the very first cause, in other words the gear up mover. Whatever its spirit7.Determinism/Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. It is the thesis that every event is causally determined by previous events in accordance with laws of nature . It is a view that mankind has a say in determining its fate and choices of the agents future. If the agent was free to choose otherwise, then they must be free. They had the decision and to choose otherwise, but also the graphic laws is unable to change. The past is fixed and out of anyones control, to say that if I had done that, the past would have been different (natural laws would have been different). However, the past cannot be changed, and therefore we are not free to choose, as we are always been influenced, determined by our past and natural laws. Determinism is what I shall be arguing for we are able to hold full moral responsibility done determinism, which over again will be explained in later chapters.Soft determinismSoft determinism differs from hard determinism. Hard determinism is one strict belief that free will cannot exist, but we are enti rely determined in our ways. Our choices, decisions, desire have all been determined for us, we are unable to prevent or change these. However, cottony determinism is the belief that determinism and free will are compatible with one another. It is possible to imagine in both without them conflicting. Compatibilists intrust that it is possible to believe in both determinism and free will without being logically inconsistent. Freedom can be present or absent in situations its about performing free in according to ones determined motives. Augustine and Hume have different ideas on their view of soft determinism, but yet still sum up the same conclusion that both determinism and free will are compatible.Augustine is a soft determinism but is also referred as a compatibilist too we are still determined but nonetheless we are also free. Augustine is a prime philosopher of soft determinism, although his determined differs as he follows the route of theological soft determinism events ar e caused by a higher power, kn let as matinee idol, yet we still obtain free will. St Augustine argued that just because God is omniscient does not mean that we do not have free will. God has foreknowledge of our choices and the decisions we will make. This does not mean man doesnt make decisions freely rather it emphasizes Gods omnipotence. Augustine argued for three type of events those that appear to be caused by chance, those caused by God (such as birth and death), and those caused by us (whether or not we take the decision to lead a chastely good life).Whereas Hume didnt believe there was a higher power affecting agents, but believed that soft determinism operates finished the mind and allows for flexible response. only if it is still deterministic, because the way the various wad that constitute moral causes operate is to establish a set of motives or reasons that render a peculiar set of manners usual8. What he means by this view is that soft determinism is about huma n nature that our morality sen snipnts are aroused by the voices of agents where he claims that nature has made the minds of all people similar in their feelings and operations9. Soft determinism overall is belief in both determinism in some aspect, and a belief that we still hold free will. They still hold the view of universal causation (hard determinism), that everything is caused by a series of casual events. moreover it is also possible to hold freedom too, such as we are able to be moral responsible agents. One is able to act in accordance with ones nature, which has been determined by factors such as heredity, family or the environment.We have now distinguished what we mean by free will, and the different aspects of determinism. In order to answer this research question to find out whether moral responsibility can exist through determinism, we must first prove that free will is an illusion which is my next chapter.Free will and determinism compatible?Free will and determin ism collide with one another. My aim in this chapter is to conclude that free will is an illusion it is unable to be compatible with determinism. My reason for arguing that free will is an illusion is so I am able to investigate whether it is possible for determinism alone (hard determinism) is able to be compatible with moral responsibility. As agents, do we have we the right to take praise and punishment, if our actions that we act upon werent our choice? However, I first have to repel free will existing. As Kane states, we would like to believe that we feel it is up to us what we choose and how we act this means we could have chosen or acted otherwise10. But is this the case? My argument is that agents are unable to act otherwise, as there is always an influence of determinism which limits their choices and decisions. I shall be exploring arguments from a free will view, but defending the determinism flak by claiming we are misled to believe that we have free will, it is an ill usion.In Kants critique of Practical soil and Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals he argues that we must admit that we are free, otherwise morality cannot exist. Reconstruction of Kants main argument of free will goes as follows1) we accept morality on intuitive grounds. 2) Morality implies ground. 3) Rationality implies free will. 4) Therefore we conclude we have free will11. In order for us to bear on morality as agents we must also maintain free will. Kant argues that Firstly, morality involves a law-a moral law-that commands me to act in a certain way. Secondly, this moral law is universal in that we conceive of it as binding on everyone without exception. Since that moral law binds everyone, I cannot, or at least ought not to, excuse myself or a friend for any crime. Evidently, then, morality as a moral law, and indeed, the moral law, is an exacting in that it demands something of every person, and in particular, each persons will12.Moral law according to Kant is an act in accordance with the demands of practical reason, it is a categorical positive (commands us to act in accordance to reason) rather than a hypothetic imperative (action indispensable for a personal motive or desire). Our reason needs to come from both reason and morality we can use a priori reason to derive necessary actions or duties, the basis on which we are to act, from one of the several formulations of the categorical imperative13. Kant defends his claim that grounds implies freedom. This is because rationality must appoint rules of both reason and morality. The categorical imperative as an imperative of rationality gives us a command to act in a certain way. It acknowledges us to use our priori reason in order to come to a conclusion of our actions and duties on what we act upon. Kant claims that of these formulations, the one that accords best with the conception of freedom is the formula of autonomy14. According to this formula, it means that the categorical imperativ e instructs the Will to act in a way that it both legislates law for itself, and at the same clipping subjects to those same laws. But these laws must conform to reason and reason is universal to every rational being. Therefore, Kant concludes that when the will acts accordance to this formula of autonomy, it is the autonomous will15, effecting that we must be free as rational beings. However, Spinoza flaws Kants argument rationalism takes place the most strict identity between cause, reason and nature in which cause is the same thing as reason, reason is the same thing as cause, and cause is the same thing as a necessary causality or determinism. From a given determinate cause there necessarily follows an effect16. This results in the opposite of Kantian approach, as rationality is incompatible with freedom. This is because determinism results in the same causes producing the same effects, like a chain. or else of looking at a philosophical approach on free will and determinism, lets take a look at the psychological approach too. Such as B.F Skinner, instead of using analogies Skinner uses hard and authentic evidence of studies and experiments to conclude that we are determined as humans. Skinner was a psychologist but also a very important proponent when it came to the debate of free will and determinism, he was well known for his behaviourist approach. Skinner stands as a hard determinist by stating thatIf we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behaviour is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some finis determine his actions17.Skinners system was based on operant conditioning, where an agents behaviour is modified by its consequences such as reward and punishment. Rather than our free will of choice and desire, we are instead determined or conditioned b y our environment. Skinners aim of operant conditioning was to prove that our past experience does determine our actions in the future. If an individual finds something pleasant from their past experience, then their behaviour is probably to be ingeminateed in the future. And vice versa- if the behaviour is followed by an sore consequence then it is unlikely the individual would not repeat it- this is known as Law of effect. In order to prove his hypothesis of determinism mule driver used an experiment called the skinner box. The Skinner box was created in order for an animal in the box to manipulate a lever that they can press to access nourishment or water- a type of reinforcement. There was a elucidation on the lever, and only when the light was on the food would be realised by pressing the lever. Through this form of eruditeness the animal was able to realise that the lever they pressed released food when the light was on rather than morose, therefore the likelihood was the behaviour of the animal would repeat when the light was on, as it was a positive reinforcement. The animal learnt that the lever would not release any food if the light was off. Skinner relates this to our physical and affectionate environment- the idea that we learn from our behaviour. When we find a positive consequence, we will repeat the behaviour, a negative response, we wont repeat the behaviour. For example, we learn from our peers when the best time is to ask them for a prefer. If they are miserable, you know not too. But if they are cheerful you know that is the best time. The reason for this is because we have learnt from our past experience. We have learnt that persons facial expression and emotions when the best time is to ask for a favour wanting a positive reinforcement. Skinner also gives different scenarios in which we learn from past experience which now determined our behaviour at once you also know that your professors are more likely to respond to your tra ining your hand if they are facing you than if their sands are turned. A green profession light, another type of discriminative stimulus, signal that driving though an carrefour is likely to be reinforced by a safe passing play18. Skinners studies shows that we are affected as humans by our past experiences, through reward and punishment, bad and good affects. But these past experiences now determine us as agents, they are unalterablely influencing us in what we do. The past cannot be escaped and no thing how much someone claims they have free will they will constantly by determined by early/past experiences. We can never be totally free in choice or decision making, it is impossible.However, Kane recognises this conflict that Skinner picks up on. That we cannot be free because we are always being influenced by external factors, such as heredity, our environment and past experiences. Therefore, to defend the libertarian approach Kane transport an example linked to B.F Skinner . Suppose a young man is on trial for an assault and robbery in which his victim was beaten to death. permit us say we attend his trail and listen to the evidence in the courtroom. At first, our thoughts of the young man are filled with anger and resentmentBut as we listen daily to how he came to have the mean character and perverse motives he did have-parental neglect, child abuse, sexual abuse, bad portion models- some of our resentment against the young man is shifted over to the parentsWe wonder whether some residual responsibility may not belong to him. Was he determined this way through his upbringing and environment, or was his choice totally free? Kane would claim he was totally free in his decision making, with no influence or deterministic route. To explore the understanding of free will and Skinners claim more Kane elaborates on the idea of garden of forking paths. To instance suppose Jane has just graduated from Law school and she has a choice between joining a law f irm in kale or a different firm in New York. If Jane believes her choice is a free choice (made of her own free will) she must believe both options are open to her while she is deliberating19. Therefore, there is more than one path available to her in her future and she believes this choice is entirely her own free will. We can see how determinism threatens the picture of free will but Kane carries on to defends the libertarian view if we stopped believing in free will then we would lose our sense of morality/ responsibility so free will must exist. But we cant just claim we have free will because we are under the illusion we have more than one choice. There could be a million choices, but the matter of the fact is only one of those choices is going to happen because we are determined. We are unable to choose otherwise. However, it could be argued that our reasoning is just an illusion. We like to believe we have a choice and be able to reason in situations, but it is possible that we have been pre-determined to make choices, but we just reason because we like to believe we are free. Its an illusion. We could deny determinism throughout our past and present future, but it doesnt mean we are not pre-determined.Pereboom reacts to Kanes argument and re-examines the libertarianism arguments. He argues that event-causal libertarianism cannot specify responsibility-conferring control20. He proves this through his own analogy. A business cleaning lady Anne, who is in a dilemma to either decide to stop and booster an assault victim, or she can refrain from so deciding. Pereboom argues that relevant causal conditions antecedent to this decision-agent-involving event, or, alternatively, states of agents-would leave it open whether this decision would occur, and she has no further causal role of the antecedent conditions already given, whether the decision occurs or not then settled by anything about the agent- whether it be states or events in which the agent is invo lved, or the agent herself21. Perebooms argument is that the agent has limited control required for her to be morally responsible. She cannot choose, nor have the desire to act upon this situation by helping the assault victim. She has no choose to do otherwise, and free will collides with this.Schopenhauer-Schopenhauer expressed that every man, being what he is and placed in the circumstances which for the moment obtaincan absolutely never do anything else than just what at that moment he does do. Accordingly, the whole course of a mans life, in all its incidents great and smell, is as necessarily predetermined as the course of a clock22. A man is able to desire what one wants to do, but his actions are predetermined for him, and isnt able to choose otherwise. To explain this, Schopenhauer implies that determinism relies on two factors of an agent their motive and their character. Our motive is causality that passes through our cognitive side ones attention, memory, their reason. A nd a situation that happens at a particular time in particular circumstances depresses the switch on the detonator causation the explosion. This presupposes the nature of electricity and of the materials used for combustion23. Another word, motivation from ones action is rooted from their personal character. This is known as their nature of the will. But what makes an agent determined, Schopenhauer explains is a reaction to the same motive will always differ in every individual. This alternatively makes up their individuality of their character. Schopenhauer calls this the empirical character as it is by its means that the way in which various motives affect the given man is determined24. An individuals character, their mental and physical attribute is constant throughout their life, no matter what it is always immutable. On looking back over our past, we see at once that our life consists of mere variations on one and the same theme, namely our character, and that the same fundame ntal bass sounds through it all. This is an experience a man can and must make in and by himself25. It could be argued that one is always changing, their character, and their physical and mental individuality. But no matter what we adapt to, or change our views, our character is always constant throughout our life because it roots back to our motive, which is our character.It is clear that free will is a weak position, and it could be claimed it is an illusion. Determinism can follow off into more routes, as Skinner has proved- a psychological approach, and Schopenhauer through an approach of our character and motive. But it is clear that determinism holds a very strong stance. Kane recognises the conflict of determinism and free will, but doesnt do much to hold his argument. To claim that just because we feel we can debate about a choice, and we think we can do otherwise does not prove we have free will. Its an illusion that we think is happening, but in reality, we have been dete rmined. As Skinner and Schopenhauer have proved, our environmental, and character determined who we are today and who we will be. Now we have proved free will to be an illusion, this raises another issue. If we are totally determined in our actions then how are we expected to take full responsibility for our actions. If our actions have been pre-determined from the beginning of the universe, or through our character of environmental basis, then how could we possibly take responsibility for our actions? We have no freedom in choosing our actions, therefore why shall we be punished for them?Is Determinism/ Causal determinism compatible with moral responsibility?After establishing that the libertarianism view cannot exist, the deterministic route now has to be examined in more depth. Free will is an illusion, admitting this means everything is determined either through a theological, psychological, behaviour or environmental path. But this raises a significant and relevant issue within philosophy which has been evolved for many centuries can moral responsibility exist if everything has been determined? How can we claim we have responsibility or take responsibility for our actions e.g. punishment and reward, if we have been determined this way as an individual? Firstly I shall be exploring what I actually mean by moral responsibility so the argument is more specific and clear. Then I shall be compound my argument to see whether hard determinism can exist with full responsibility of our actions concluding that through the hard deterministic route it is possible to have full moral responsibility.Defining moral responsibility and determinismConcentrating on the issue of moral responsibility, I first have to define what I mean by this. Moral responsibility refers to whether an individual holds full responsibility of their actions and morals they act upon. As Pereboom explains the term meaning for an agent to be morally responsible for an action is for it to belong to her in such a way that she would deserve blame is she understood that it was morally wrong, and she would deserve credit or perhaps praise is she understood that it was morally exemplary26. If we take to definition of moral responsibility and link it with determinism (holding that determinism is true and in no form can be compatible with free will) we now start to trope an argument. If our lives our determined for us, then why are we held responsible for our actions if our actions are not a choice we can make, they cant be prevented or chosen. butt joint moral responsibility exist?Ogletree and Oberle examine whether we have the right to hold individuals responsible for their actions blame and punish them, if they could not have done otherwise. In a research study by Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer and Turner (2005) examining peoples thoughts on moral