Hyrum Marchant

Philosophy 1010
Instructor: Jeff Woods
5/1/15

Free Will (Libertarianism) VS. Determinism

The question of Free will is of course a major question of discussion in the philosophical
world. It is essentially the question of whether or not man makes his own decisions or, is merely
an object or product of nature and/or is required by a higher power to make certain actions etc.
There is also a problem with the arguments themselves in that philosophers also argue over the
definition of certain words like freedom, choice, god and so on. Mainly this paper will focus on
the arguments both for free will and determinism.
Most atheist philosophers argue that man has no spirit, and is nothing more than a
physical body, therefore the reactions in our thinking and decision making are merely atoms in
the mind reacting a certain way, this is called determinism. The atoms react in a certain way due
to randomness, genetic factors, and our environment. So even though we may appear to make
choices, our thinking could be nothing more than atoms colliding in our brains, with the result of
us preforming an action that was predestined by chemicals in the brain reacting. Scientific
evidence shows that even minor malfunctions in brain chemistry lead a person to act very
abnormally sometimes to a point where communication or even rational thinking appears to be
nonexistent, therefore a person is highly dependent on brain functions and at least they cannot be
considered to have free will.
Some philosophers that do believe in a higher power make this argument: God knows all,
including the future, he knows what our actions must be, and therefore we could not do any other

than that which we do because it is predestined to be so. If someone were to make a different
decision than what God had predetermined than that would nullify the existence of god. If god
didnt know the future he would not be all powerful making him/it an unlikely power. Various
theologians such as the Calvinists, philosophers and deists can fall into this category of nonbelievers in free-will.
There is also an argument posed by some that say that since we are all controlled by other
human beings that that in-itself is enough to take away free will. For example, we might be able
to choose to move house but we are limited to what is available, our socio-economic status and
government laws (Rebecca Massey-Chase,1). So in other words free will is only an illusion of
free will and not choice.
Arguably the stronger arguments for free will, is the argument that god exists and grants
us free Will. Kant stated that if choice is implied by the creator we must therefore have free will.
If god were to punish sinners who could not help themselves he would be un-just. Kant argues
that morality comes to us through rational thinking, and that since men are rational beings we
have the power to think about decisions and consider if they are moral or not through his
universally applicable maxim theory.
Here is another argument for free will: Just because some events are adequately
determined does not justify the widespread belief in an absolute universal determinism. (the
information philosopher, 1) So if its seems to us as rational beings that we do have free will, and
if the above statement is true, than it is more logical to assume that we do have free will. Some
may say for example that things like mental illness do fall into the category for being adequately
determined, but these factors dont apply to all of us.

You say: I am not free. But I have raised and lowered my arm. Everyone understands
that this illogical answer is an irrefutable proof of freedom. Wrote Leo Tolstoy in War and
Peace. The argument may be very simple but he does have a point on at least some level or the
other. We do things we like to do. Sometimes we do things we dont want to do in order to avoid
certain consequences. But nonetheless we have the ability to choose in those moments. (good
reads,1)
There is another group that can be added to the believers in free will and they believe
something along the lines of this: A person's looking for a simple truth to live by, there it is.
CHOICE. To refuse to passively accept what we've been handed by nature or society, but to
choose for ourselves. CHOICE. That's the difference between emptiness and substance, between
a life actually lived and a wimpy shadow cast on an office wall. (Tim Robbins wrote this in Still
Life with Woodpecker). There are some that may say that most people may live in situations
where they do not have free will but can rise above them. We might be a prisoners of society and
our biology but there is something within us that can pull us out if we want it bad enough. (Good
reads,1)
Ultimately we cannot know if we have free will or not, at least not now with our limited
capacities. Only time (and only maybe) time will tell if we choose or if we are nothing but living
breathing beings governed completely by a cruel and over bearing higher power or by our own
biology. We can however recognize as a society that it makes more sense to assume that we do
have free will in order to keep our standards of justice while perhaps recognizing that we can
improve someones ability for free will by helping those in need. It is also important to recognize
that there are those who are mentally incapable of having free will and should be treated with
respect and kindness. As Larry Wall puts it: You cant change the past. You cant even change the

future, in the sense that you can only change the present one moment at a time, stubbornly, until
the future unwinds itself into the stories of our lives. (Goodreads,1)

"The Standard Argument Against Free Will." The Standard Argument Against Free Will. Web. 5 May
2015. <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html>.
"Quotes About Free Will." (315 Quotes). Web. 5 May 2015.
<http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/free-will>.
Pollard, Luke, and Rebbeca Chase. "An Argument About Free Will." An Argument About Free Will.
Web. 3 May 2015. <https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/An_Argument_About_Free_Will>.