Defense of Hard Determinism

In this paper I will defend W.T. Stace’s position of compatibilism in respect to the problem of free will, as presented in Religion and the Modern Mind. I will explain Stace’s position on how free will and casual determinism are compatible. I will consider the following two objections against Stace’s position of free will: compatibilism is too weak a notion of free will that it conflicts with determinism, and there is no real difference between free and constrained action.

In order to explain my thoughts, we must first understand the full meaning of hard determinism. In Holbach’s essay on hard determinism, he says, “Nevertheless, in spite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is pretended he is a free agent, or that independent of the causes by which he is moved, he determines his own will, and regulates his own condition.”1 He explains that free will is an illusion and that all of our actions are pre-determined by prior factors. Prior factors would include: experiences from the past, how one was raised, genetic makeup and so on. No matter what you decide to do, you will never actually have a say in it because everything in your life has led up to that point.

The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to

In this essay I will argue D’Hollbach’s argument on that everything is pre-determined, and that there is no free will at all, just pre-arranged determinates. I will argue and show what points and flaws D’Hollbach has with his arguments on hard determinism.

I believe that a person’s grade in this class is not determined from the start of the big bang. I do not agree that multiple causes, even causes that do not directly impact me, in a given timeline would determine my grade in this class. A person has the complete freedom and responsible for every action that person performs. I agree with the idea of soft determinism more than hard determinism since those actions that I perform have some effect on my timeline. There is a cause and effect for those actions or events in my timeline that will impact my grade in this

To be a soft determinist or a compatibilist, there are certain conditions that must be followed. One is the belief in the free will, another is the belief in determinism-or that actions and thoughts have causes, and the final is that both free will and determinism can go together. (Hume 113-114). This view still allows for people to be morally responsible for their actions while suggesting that it is possible that there where underlying means to the thought of that action. This theory on free will is believable because it allows for both internal and external factors to influence decisions. This shows that all choices have both a mental component and a physical component. The internal or mental component is how a person believes that he can directly influence or change a situation. The physical or external component is how the outside environment or previous decisions create the choice that a person has to make.

What's the difference between free will, soft determinism and hard determinism? Free will is voluntary decision, the ability to choose and decide without limitation, one is acting at their own discretion. Soft determinism is the view that determinism and free will work together simultaneously, things happen beyond ones control, but every person still has enough freedom to have responsibility for the things they are a part of. Hard determinism is a theory that holds determinism to be true, and that it cannot work together with free will because free will does not exist. First, "Determinism, a philosophical thesis that every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes ("Determinism", 2017)". Based off these definitions, soft determinism

Chapter 3 refers to “Free Will” as having the power to make choices and engage in actions that originate with ourselves. Free will means that each individual has the freedom to make moral choices, engage in moral behavior, display moral actions, and act ethically. Determinism states that every event has a cause. Unlike free will, determinism suggest that every action, thought, and feeling is caused by an event. Basically, nothing happened that is not caused to happen. Interdeterminism suggest that internal factors both biological and psychological influence choice making and behavior.

To begin with, hard determinism titles that, "all our choices are determined and that we do not have moral responsibility for our actions" (Lawhead 120). For someone to be considered as a hard determinist they would have to

A common challenge to free will is determinism. “Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event,

After reading about the two theories, I believe that neither one really supports free will. Determinism states that everything we do and everything we think is caused by circumstances beyond our control. All of our thoughts and emotions are there in our mind already so we do not have the choice to make our own decisions. For example, if we go to buy a house, we may think that we picked it out but really it was picked out for us.

A common challenge to free will is determinism. “Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event,

In this first part I will be explaining libertarianism, compatibilism and hard determinism. Libertarianism means we have complete free will in what we do, so it pretty much means your actions are unpredictable or even undetermined by the past. compatibilism means we have free will however there are consequences with the choices you make, and hard determination means we have no freedom at all meaning free will. In what follows I will argue that compatibilism is the most persuasive position because it is the theory that holds the truest to human experience, because I feel there isn’t enough evidence to support hard determinism, and libertarianism.

For each variety of determinism, there are philosophers who deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will. There are also a few who say the truth of any variety of determinism is irrelevant because free will is simply impossible. The discussion about free will also leads me to discuss the argument of moral responsibility. Here is an argument, which appears to prove that we cannot truly be morally responsible for our actions, it makes no difference whether determinism is true or false. We cannot be truly or ultimately morally responsible for our actions in either case. This argument has various expressions in the literature of free will, and its central idea can be quickly articulated. (1) Nothing can be the cause of itself. (2) In order to be truly morally responsible for one's actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental

First of all, I will state the problem of free will. The problem of free will shows the conflict between determinism and free will, which is illustrated by the following argument: