Last Name 1

Student’s Name

Instructor

Course

Date

Free Will is Not an Illusion

The problem of free will has been in existence for centuries. Not even science has

answered the question whether humans act freely or are their choices are pre-determined by

forces beyond human control. Two main theories have been put froth concerning the existence of

free will; the determinism and free will theories. Proponents of the free-will suggest that humans

are free beings who make their choices independent of external or uncontrollable internal factors.

On the other hand, determinists suggest that humans do not have control of their actions but

rather their actions are responses to external forces which are beyond their control. Even in the

twenty-first century, this debate is yet to be solved. To better understand the debate it is

important to understand what exactly philosophers mean by free will. A common straightforward

perception of the concept is that if human’s actions are controlled by external factor, then they do

not have free will. Otherwise, if they can act free of any incontrollable influences then they have

free will. It is imperative to note that a choice can only be free if there are alternatives to choose

from. For instance, if a person has to eat a fruit and only a banana is availed, than the choice to

eat the banana is not a free choice. It can only be free if the person had more fruits to choose

from, say, from bananas, apples and kiwis. Free will is a thorny issue especially when so many

philosophers have argued that humans do not have free will. A person may question, then why

do humans exist in the first place if they have no freedom of choice? It is then valid to argue that
 Last Name 2

humans are rational beings who have the freedom of choice and act upon cognitive choice by

choosing actions that they thin benefit them.

Freedom of choice is the basic meaning of living, in that humans live freely and have

power to determine their destiny. This means that humans are free beings, who are responsible

for every action they take. In the humanistic approach, humans are believed to be free willed,

and motivated to reach their destiny by self-actualization (McLeod Par 2). The humanistic

approach contradicts the fatalistic idea that human life is predetermined and that behavior is

determined. Personal agency is the term use in this theory to denote the human utilization of free

will. It refers to the choices humans make in their lives and the directions people choose and the

consequences of taking the said actions. Psychologists such as Maslow (1943) acknowledge that

free will is possible and is necessary for the complete functioning of the human brain (McLeod

Par 2). In this perspective free will is not just possible but necessary from the actualization of

human needs. It is the motivation that a person can be whatever they choose to be only if they act

right towards being who they want to be. Take for instance, what effects would therapy yield if

actions are predetermined and the subject is not in control of their actions? According to

Sigmund Freud (1895) therapy is conducted to help a patient overcome the unconscious and get

hold of their actions and to help them become more free (McLeod Par 2). Unlike determinism,

the humanistic approach is optimistic and believes in the noble human capacity to overcome

obstacles and self-actualize. For humanist psychologists, the personal fulfilment and a person’s

destiny is not a predetermined thing but rather the results of the choices a person’s makes. This

implies that each person in their chosen ways seek to continuously grow and develop themselves.

These actions are evidence of free will as every person will continuously choose what best suits

their idea of self-actualization.

 Last Name 3

According to most religious beliefs, human beings are free to choose goodness or evil but

must bear the consequences of their choices. The Christian religion and specifically the Hebrew

belief dictates that man was created free and can choose life or death (Lewis 19). By choosing

life implies that the person chooses the way of God whose reward is eternal life. On the contrary

choosing death means choosing sin whose wages are death. Though humans do not often choose

good, they have the power to choose righteousness. In religion, there is duality of existence in

which the soul, is immaterial and not subject to deterministic laws (Lewis 20). In this case the

spiritual self is free from external influences but rather chooses its actions. Take for instance the

genesis story of creation, when humans were created and placed in the Garden of Eden, God

gave them instructions not eat from the tree of life. However due to the existence of free will

humans disobeyed and ate from the very tree they were not supposed to eat from. The personal

agency in this case is not determined. If there were powers beyond human control they would

have controlled human actions to act according to God’s will (Lewis 30). This example amounts

to the conviction that humans are endowed with the ability to distinguish between good and bad

and to make individual choices to pursue. The religious belief goes beyond Christianity as most

other religions have a distinction between good and evil and the individual has the power to

choose between the two. However, the individual will be answerable for their actions. In most

religions there is a reward for following good and punishment for sin. It follows in these notions

that God is not responsible for human actions. Therefore, the religious view supports that human

actions are not determined.

In the Objectivist view, man has free will and in the many courses of choices man

makes there are always a variety of options to choose from. Whichever actions people choose to

do there is equally a similar chance that they could have chosen another alternative (Bisell 69).
 Last Name 4

For instance, a person proposing to a marriage to their loved ones expects one of the two possible

answers, “yes” or “no.” on the other side, the person answering has the options and can therefore

choose to answer by either. In the objectivist view, free will is a matter of conscious and

unconsciousness. In other words it resides on the person’s ability to focus or not to. Certainly,

this theory reinforces the belief that humans are rational beings who will act in the most

beneficial way (Franklin 17). However, from this perspective it can be viewed as that all

psychological problems are a result of human irrationality and the failure in cognitive abilities.

This value then holds every conscious person or rather person of sound mind accountable for

their actions because every action has an alternative. Whether a person acts in response to the

external environment or on impulse or after deliberations, that person chooses from a wide range

of alternatives to come up with the soundest judgment (Bissell 71). Therefore, the decision made

is not determined the impulse or the external influences but rather is a result of the final decision

that the person chooses. Thus final causation of the action is the end-determination, in other

terms the final choice which is voluntary and non-determined. This theory bears similarity with

the religious view that human’s first shoos to think and that the choice to think is the human’s

whim for indeterminism.

However, in consideration of the arguments for free will, it can be argued that the genes

and environment considerably influence people’s actions. In Darwin’s theory of evolution,

intelligence is inheritable and thus a person can inherit their parent’s way of thinking

(Willoughby et al. 137). In this case the academic abilities or choices that the individual with

inherited intelligence genes will be influenced by their genetic makeup rather than their free

conscious. Scientifically, behavior is predetermined by forces beyond our control since the

genetic composition determines a person’s character traits. Furthermore, apart from the genetic
 Last Name 5

issue, there is the argument of nature versus nurture, in which it argued that a person is a product

of their bringing up. In this case a child brought up in a religious ways is most likely to become

religious (Franklin 41). In most instances a child will learn from their environment, socialize and

in most cases act according to the culture of the environment. In this case, a child born in a

particular culture does not choose to dress or behave according to the culture but is rather a pre-

determined thing. However, this deterministic notion fails to address the power of choice in all

these. It is common for a person born in a religious family to become an atheist which shows the

presence of free-will and the choice to determine one’s destiny.

In summary, Free will exists, and humans are entirely responsible for their actions and

determination of their future. Most actions that humans commit have numerous alternatives and

it takes free will to choose the most appropriate options. It is undeniable that people are judged

from their actions and not their backgrounds or genetic makeup as suggested by the deterministic

view. This is because the actions are free-willed and there are numerous options to choose from.

Whether a decision is influenced by the person’s upbringing or any other external factor it boils

down to choice. The person has to choose to act in a certain way and as result must reap from or

pay for their actions. Therefore free will is not an allusion, and is achievable only if the subject

chooses to focus on the choices.

 Last Name 6

Works Cited

Bissell, Roger E. "Where There's a Will, There's a “Why” A Critique of the Objectivist Theory

of Volition." The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 15.1 (2015): 67-96.

Willoughby, Emily A., et al. "Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the

heritability of behavior." Behavior genetics 49.2 (2019): 136-153.

McLeod, Saul. “Humanistic Approach” Simply Psychology 2020

https://www.simplypsychology.org/humanistic.html

Lewis, C. S.. "Mere Christianity". Christianity and Modern Politics, edited by Louisa S. Hulett,

Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021, pp. 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847710-005

Franklin, Richard Langdon. Freewill and determinism: A study of rival conceptions of man.

Routledge, 2017.