Do we really have free will?

Post Reply New Topic

The philosopher Spinoza once suggested:
“…men believe that they are free, precisely because they are conscious of their volitions and desires; yet concerning the causes that have determined them to desire and will they have not the faintest idea, because they are ignorant of them.”

Even though it feels like we have free will most of the time, could it be possible that this feeling is just a lack of knowledge and understanding like Spinoza suggests? Could everything in our lives really be pre-determined? According to determinism theory, the present is fixed. Meaning that it is impossible for things in the present to have been otherwise. Do any of you agree with this notion?

I found this example in an article I read by Cover, J. A., & Garns, R. L. A man is walking in the woods and stumbles across a child drowning in a lake. The man instinctively jumps into the lake to save the child. Does the man really deserve praise and maybe a reward for his actions? It wasn’t like the man contemplated for a few seconds whether or not he should jump in, he acted out of instinct. So one might argue that the man didn’t act out of his own free will, I would argue the man was already pre-disposed to act a certain way if he stumbled into such a circumstance. What do you all think about it?

Did the person mentally intend to do this? Would the instinct have emerged from moral intuitions?

If either of those, then why not reward and praise for these things? Promoting it would have desirable results. Not only that, but these drives would emerge from the parts of the human being that are associated with moral notions? Being pre-disposed is irrelevant, in fact, if the action came from nowhere, then why would it be good? After all, if there is no reason why a good action is chosen over an evil one, then what is the problem?

I guess the determinist argument would be the action did stem from moral intuitions that were the result of his pre-determined upbringing.




I guess the determinist argument to this would be that it wouldn’t have been a good or a bad action because based on past events and the laws of nature the event was already determined to happen. Based on things such as his upbringing, and the set of circumstances that led him into the woods in the first place.

I don’t know, I’m not saying I’m completely sold on everything the determinist theory states, but it is at least enough to get me to think about it.

Why does that matter at all?

Not only that, but "determinist argument". You do realize that there is hard determinism and soft determinism. The first says that moral actions do not exist, while the second believes that morality is compatible with determinsm.


I already responded to your mistake about thinking about what all determinists think.

In any case, my statement was this: "if the action came from nowhere, then why would it be good?", which actually refers to free will. I am basically countering that free will does not have a valid way to claim actions are good or bad either.

In any case, past laws of nature are irrelevant. Are we dealing with a person in our determinist system, yes or no? Does personhood involve behaviors that are moral or immoral, yes or no? If the person acted in a manner that we consider moral then we can laud him, if they acted in a manner that we consider immoral then we do not. Appeals to greater metaphysical issues is irrelevant, as we can just claim that persons are beings that have the emergent property of personhood. We do not have to exhaustively define who must and must not have it, just assume that we personally must have it, and those around us likely also have it.

No I actually did not know this, but thank you for telling me because I’m interested in researching them both.



Oh, I see what you are saying now, yeah that does seem to make sense.

Oh, ok!

Well, compatibilism vs incompatibilism is a major issue in talking about free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibil ... patibilism

In any case, wikipedia is a good start(not a good finish) to understanding this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... etaphysics)

There are also a number of writings about this issue. So, if you are deeply curious about the philosophical issue, there are a number of books and writings out there that could be read. But yeah, this is a major issue, and so if you want to do some minor, or even some in-depth research, there are a lot of places to go I'd think.

Thanks AG, those links are interesting. I just recently became interested in philosophy and free will is a topic especially fascinating to me for some reason.

If you are really interested in free will you should think it through. Every decision we make is dependent upon our capability, conscious or unconscious, to analyze a choice and its probable outcome and decide on that basis. I am curious as to why one should make decisions without this very deterministic process. Whether the factors influencing the choice are rational or otherwise has no bearing upon our decision.

Free will existed prior to the enlightenment.

Last edited by Averick on 12 Apr 2009, 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Free will is a delusion created by the odd ability of language to imply existence to non-existent things and actions. If it did exist it would be totally useless and violently dangerous to a living creature that made decisions not accountable to self preservation and cogent expectation of outcomes.

i saw an ad on TV today which was about "funeral cover". (one of those "what would your family do if you passed away" and "for the price of a cup of coffee" ads).
anyway, they said they would also throw in a free will kit, so i guess that would come in handy.

Bundled, I assume, with those "valuable" derivatives the government is so anxious to sell to suckers.

So you concur?

Concur to what?

That free will existed prior to the enlightenment?

I am compelled to agree with you.

ruveyn