Does Free Will Exist?

Started by Kohai ·

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?
As should be clear from this short discussion of the history of the idea of free will, free will has traditionally been conceived of as a kind of power to control one’s choices and actions. When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her. But up to her in what sense? As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action. However, there is widespread controversy both over whether each of these conditions is required for free will and if so, how to understand the kind or sense of freedom to do otherwise or sourcehood that is required. While some seek to resolve these controversies in part by careful articulation of our experiences of deliberation, choice, and action (Nozick 1981, ch. 4; van Inwagen 1983, ch. 1), many seek to resolve these controversies by appealing to the nature of moral responsibility. The idea is that the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness involved in free will is the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness relevant to moral responsibility (Double 1992, 12; Ekstrom 2000, 7–8; Smilansky 2000, 16; Widerker and McKenna 2003, 2; Vargas 2007, 128; Nelkin 2011, 151–52; Levy 2011, 1; Pereboom 2014, 1–2). Indeed, some go so far as to define ‘free will’ as ‘the strongest control condition—whatever that turns out to be—necessary for moral responsibility’ (Wolf 1990, 3–4; Fischer 1994, 3; Mele 2006, 17). Given this connection, we can determine whether the freedom to do otherwise and the power of self-determination are constitutive of free will and, if so, in what sense, by considering what it takes to be a morally responsible agent. On these latter characterizations of free will, understanding free will is inextricably linked to, and perhaps even derivative from, understanding moral responsibility. And even those who demur from this claim regarding conceptual priority typically see a close link between these two ideas. Consequently, to appreciate the current debates surrounding the nature of free will, we need to say something about the nature of moral responsibility.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Where do you stand?

Sign in to share your stance.

Your stance can change. Your earlier arguments stay where you posted them.

For 63% · 5 Undecided 12% · 1 Against 25% · 2

8 participating members

Arguments for (1)

Free will and an all-powerful God

It is a common belief that either we have free will, and that human action by free will can result in evil or good consequence, and, therefore, God is not all powerul, or He would not allow human miserey to occur. This is a faulty proposal because it assumes that because God is all poweful, He is compelled to act with all power all the time, including the power to rewmove all evil from our lives. It also discounts that by our free will, we can choose to overcome evil ourselves; a process that defines our purpose on Earth in the first place.

0 likes

If you believe you can overcome evil by your own will, you are not a Christian as you don't believe without Jesus and Holy Spirit we are powerless to fight evil.

0 likes

Arguments against (3)

You do not have fully free will, or you'd have as much agency as an ant.

If we truly have free will, without constraints, we would be as able to have agency as an ant.


The reason we have more agency than ants is we are literally designed superior.


Superior beings have more agency, this is actually how you define superiority. Richer people have more agency unless their wealth-source enslaves them to other elites and their agenda or their inability to work with God against the pull towards the deadly sins, drives them impulsively (or even compulsively) to a path of destruction.


The only free will you have is the relative will, within the range your body, wealth and life events plus social constructs around you permit you.


This is for instance why Americans and westerners in general are thousands of times freer to use their will than those in Iran or China, let alone North Korea.


Will is not entirely self-decided at all. Your will is only as much as a regime allows and reality allows you to break free from said regime if it's tyrannical. You are not free to not want to urinate when your bladder is bursting, that is just 1 of many examples that your will isn't fully free.

0 likes

Infinite regress or randomness

Problem of free will lies in a simple question: What causes a choice?


If cause of choice is itself not a choice, then choices are pre-determined by causes which arent a choice.


If cause of choice is itself a choice, it leads to infinite regress where each choice needs another choice to cause it.


If choice doesnt have a cause, it is impossible to control choice to begin with. You just get choice you were randomly assigned.


Free will is simply logically contradictive concept. It is impossible to explain it, and it doesnt have any logical coherence or definition as a concept.


This is best proved by example of finite knowledge. People with less knowledge were consistently shown to make worse choices. Same with people with low IQ.


Because choice directly depends on knowledge and IQ, these not being choices themselves, result is that free will is conditional. Same with people who are insane or have learning disability. Likewise, no one is really arguing that children have free will.

0 likes

If compatibilism is true then free will does exist, right? So isn't this an argument for?

0 likes

Replying to Savant

...not free will as is commonly defined. Compatiblism is a hybrid between determinism and free will.

0 likes

Replying to SkepticalOne

It was always my understanding that a compatibilist would believe in free will and determinism, hence the name. It's moreso that both are true than a third option. If the resolution was about libertarian free will then yeah that would be different but I don't think that was implied.

0 likes

Replying to Savant

As a fellow compatibilist, you have it right that most colloquially back free will who are it but in true intellectual honesty we support non fully free will.

0 likes