Free Will And Determinism

Free Will and Determinism

At the very beginning of the book, Free Will and Determinism, three characters (Frederick, Carolyn and Daniel) engage in a discussion on an issue involving a murder case. The murder case involves two eighteen year olds, Leopold and Loeb, whom kill a little boy and then are tried for it. As the book exemplifies, Frederick is a free-willist (believing in free will), Daniel a determinist (believing in no free will) and Carolyn a compatibilist (believing in free will and determinism coexisting). The problem arises during the murder discussion, with each of the three characters strongly maintaining their own different stance on the issue. Frederick retains his distinct view about the debate, while Daniel upholds his and Carolyn hers. In terms of this small selected argument introduced at the beginning of the book, is where the core of the problem is recognized. The compatibilist Carolyn believes that it should not be argued in terms of free will or determinism, but rather “in terms of” three main questions to explicate, do people have free will?, Is determinism true?, and are free will and determinism compatible? From these three questions stem the advancement of identifying any conflicts between free will and determinism and any possible solutions. These questions and problem itself happen to be extremely vital; because this is a subject matter that comes up often in our lives and one that many of us are able to understand the significance of. Free will can only exist in a deterministic universe; therefore free will is compatible with determinism.

Daniel, as mentioned earlier is a determinist. As a determinist, Daniel firstly believes that people have no control or free will over anything that they do. He mentions that a wide range of happenings that are known to have direct causes justifies his claim that everything that happens has a cause. In terms of everyday experience for example, wind causes trees to bend, rain causes plants to grow and friction causes heat. In terms of examples involving people for example, hunger causes people to eat, peer pressure causes people to conform and stress causes people to become tense. Daniel also mentions that the sciences of Biology, Sociology, Psychology, Psychiatry and Neurology all tell us something about ourselves, in terms of what kind of people we will be, what we will do determined by environments, how we will be as adults because of our youth hoods, and what we will do as a result of chemical happenings in our brains (Cliffords 4). Daniel secondly believes that the fact that we can deliberate does not mean we have free will. For example, physiologists and neurosurgeons attain enough information about our bodies that cause us to move certain parts of our bodies and have certain thoughts. Experiments are performed on different parts of the brain that cause certain parts to move even though we have no control over that movement (Cliffords 18). Daniel thirdly believes that feelings of awareness of free will and intuitions are heavily unreliable. For example, Daniel presents the idea that he can argue that it will rain this afternoon because he has the feeling it will and then it does not. He suggests that his hesitancy to trust intuitions or free will is because of the possibility of them ending up as a mistake. Daniel Fourthly believes determinism can not be compatible with free will, since no one can be both free and determined. That would mean that if everything we do is determined, then nothing we do can be free. Lastly, Daniel believes that moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible. He thinks that determinism is so strong that we should believe it even if that means denying moral responsibility. Herein, it is clear that Daniel holds all of the cut and clear aspects of a determinist. He includes incites as to the way things are, about natural law and to the way that things will be. Based on the examples he presented in Free Will and Determinism, his beliefs are pretty apparent that determinism has to be the right idea “because of this in terms of that.” It also kind of leaves Daniel in the clash of whether or not there is a possible solution at all to the problem.

Frederick, as mentioned earlier is a free-willist. As a free-willist, Frederick believes that people have free will and concludes that determinism has to be false. In correspondence to how Daniel replies to how everything that happens has a cause, Frederick goes to show that there is not enough evidence to show that every happening is caused (Cliffords 6-7). He responds that only a small percentage of worldly events have been observed. This does not even include such minor percentages seen in cases such as grass and falling objects. There are too many areas of human behavior that have not been investigated yet by scientists so, therefore, it is somewhat insignificant to say that every happening has a cause if there is plenty of room left for free and uncaused actions. Frederick secondly displays that we do have free will, because of the fact that we are able to deliberate, choose, think, confront alternatives and are directly aware of ourselves acting freely. He offers the example of deliberating on the notion of whether or not he wants to attend a concert. He has two different alternatives, to either go to the concert or to do something else like stay at home and read a book. He indicates that he has a choice or power of deliberation, and since he has this choice he therefore has free will (Cliffords 18). Frederick thirdly preserves his belief in free will, because he believes that we have inner intuitions of being able to act and choose differently compared to how we would actually act and choose. He describes how one day a person could be walking home from school and there are two ways that this person can take. They are both the same length, neither is prettier, neither is more convenient and neither is less dangerous than the other. At this point is when that person realizes that they have two choices (with themselves being aware of this) and that after choosing one, they are aware they could have chosen the other. Lastly, Frederick provides that determinism and moral responsibility are incompatible. He believes that people must be morally responsible for what they do, because blame and punishment would not make sense if this were the case. To be morally responsible for something, there has to be more than one thing we can do. As what can be seen, Frederick holds onto his belief in free will very strongly. Specifying that this can largely be proven simply on the alternatives we come up with at the time of decision making and also how morality intertwines along