Free Will: Reality or an Illusion (Free Essay Example)

Our life is made up of decisions. These decisions can be as big as where to go to college or as little as what coffee to order. For hundreds of years, philosophers have been debating over how much control we have over our own feelings, thoughts, emotions, actions, and decisions. For some, they believe we have completely free control, in that we are able to completely make our own decisions no matter what. While others believe every action, thought, and emotion we have is predetermined and caused by the past and nature. This paper will defend the view of determinism, in that free will is an illusion and our life is a pathway made up of predetermined decisions that create our very own unique future. 

To understand what determinism is, we must understand what free will is. Free will is the capacity for which humans have the power to make their own choices independently. For example, we may feel “free” to choose between buying a new pair of sunglasses or a new sweatshirt. People who believe in the free will theory believe nothing is predetermined and we are able to create our own unique future through the choices we make every day. On the contrary, people who believe in determinism think completely different from those who believe we have free will. Free will and determinism live on two completely opposite sides of the spectrum. Determinism, according to Peter van Inwagen,  is “the thesis that the past and the laws of nature together determine, at every moment, a unique future.” (P. van Inwagen, 330). Under determinism, our behaviors are completely predictable. In other words, if you get to a certain point in your life, given the laws of nature, there is only one way for life to continue. Some of the factors that may cause actions include the weather and our past. Think about the last decision you made. Was it caused by something that occurred before it? The answer is most likely yes. You decided not to go to the soccer game because it was raining outside. You decide to stay in instead of going out because you have finals to study for. You pay rent because you signed a lease. All of these decisions were made because of something that happened before. Free will and determinism are incompatible, that is they cannot co-exist. However, people who believe free will and determinism can both exist and be mutually compatible are considered compatibilists. Compatibilists believe that we can have the freedom to do some things, but not others. An example of this would be, that we have the choice to decide what we wear to class, but we don’t have the choice to spill coffee on our shirt and stain it, it just happens.

Peter van Inwagen offers great insight into the free will problem in his article, How to Think about the Problem of Free Will. In this article, which we read in class, Van Inwagen discusses free will, determinism, and the various other theories and views that stem from these ideas. Specifically, Van Inwagen argues that “There are seemingly unanswerable arguments that (if they are indeed unanswerable) demonstrate that free will is incompatible with determinism.” (P. van Inwagen, 327). The general problem of free will that he proposes is that the problem arises when it seems that free will is impossible if determinism is true and determinism is impossible if free will is true. Van Inwagen believes that if free will is impossible, blaming people for wrongdoings is also impossible since, under determinism, these events were inevitable and bound to happen. Van Inwagen labels himself as an incompatibilist because he believes free will is impossible under some conditions of determinism. Therefore free will and determinism cannot co-exist, either there is free will or there is determinism.

Another philosopher that attempts to crack the code for the problem of free will and determinism is Derk Pereboom. In his paper, “Determinism al Dente”, Pereboom argues for hard determinism. Pereboom introduces the idea of “hard” and “soft” determinism. He defines “hard determinism” as “the incompatibilist endorsement of determinism and rejection of the freedom required for moral responsibility.” (Pereboom, 21). Soft determinism is then defined as, “we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, that having this sort of freedom is compatible with determinism.” (Pereboom, 21). The main claim of this paper is, that “hard determinism” isn't as bad as people may think. Many people believe that the “hard determinist” view is close-minded and harsh, however, Pereboom’s interpretation of it is not radical or extreme. To make his argument, Pereboom presents a made-up scenario in which Mr. Green kills Ms. Peacock only for the sake of personal gain. Mr. Green’s choice to murder is his own. His desire to kill is a choice he is freely making or is it? Mr. Green’s first-order desire is to murder and his second-order desire is the murder Ms. Peacock. If Mr. Green’s desires were not coerced by anything other than himself, then he would be morally responsible for his crimes according to “soft determinism”. On the contrary, if Mr. Green’s desires were coerced or manipulated by something else, then it is possible that him murdering Ms. Peacock was inevitable given their causes and he would not be morally responsible. The main argument that is put forward by Pereboom is that, in certain situations, we lack the freedom required for moral responsibility. We therefore never deserve blame for having performed a wrongful act and we can preserve certain moral attitudes under determinism.

While determinism is a well-liked view by many philosophers, there are still many arguments against it. Andre Gallois is one philosopher who challenges determinism and believes we have free will. In his paper, “Van Inwagen on Free Will and Determinism”, Gallois presents Van Inwagen’s arguments for free will and determinism. To recap, Van Inwagen believes that “a determinism framed in terms of causal laws excludes freedom of action.” (GALLOIS, 99). Gallois attempts to show that the argument Van Inwagen invoked to support his conclusion is inadequate. His main argument is, that free will is incompatible with determinism. He supports this by saying that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism, and since we have moral responsibility determinism is false. Moral responsibility requires the freedom to make your own choices, therefore if someone is morally responsible for anything, there must be something that person had a free choice about. William James also argues for free will in his paper, “The Dilemma of Determinism”. He argues that the debate between free will and determinism should be refashioned instead as a choice between "chance" and determinism. He feels individuals can ignore any action as real, and pretend that another action is real, therefore we should accept chance rather than determinism. However, just because you feel you are “free” to make any choice you want at any given moment, doesn’t make determinism untrue. You may think you freely choose to skip class, but what is that was already predetermined and part of the path you are supposed to be on? There is no way to prove with 100% certainty that free will is true or determinism is true. 

Overall, determinism and free will cannot coexist, they are not compatible. Every decision we make and action we perform is inevitable and bound to happen. If we were to travel back in time 100 years and try to change history, it is very likely that nothing would change and everything would stay the same because everything is predetermined for us by an external source. Big events, such as the Great Depression, 9/11, and the COVID 19 pandemic would still happen. In this paper, I present arguments for determinism that proved free will is an illusion and compatibilism cannot exist. Based on the information I have learned and researched, I believe every choice we make, past, future, and present, is predetermined and we each have our own unique future.