CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
21
Yes No
Debate Score:38
Arguments:28
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (10)
 
 No (11)

Debate Creator

peterc(39) pic



Do human beings possess free will?

Human beings have an overwhelming sense that they can choose how they act; I might get up and make up a cup of tea, or I might change my mind and make a cup of coffee instead, or I might choose to not get up at all. The future seems open and up to us - a kind of forking path that lies ahead.

Yet, some philosophers argue that this is just an illusion.  Are all of human actions determined? Is the future fixed?

Yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

No

Side Score: 21
3 points

The intuition we all have that we can do whatever we like - that we do have free will - is so strong it is impossible to ignore. Surely this is a (reasonably) weighty reason for believing we do have free will.

Side: Yes

Yes, we possess free will; it's up to you to decide your fate. I think those who don't feel they control their future are probably not happy with their lot in life and are ripe for liberalism. The democrats love to pander to the disgruntled and play them as victims of society and that only gov't can remedy it. That way they are absolved of any responsibility. If you can't get what you want in life, we can help. Thus, the dependency cycle begins.

Side: Yes
SomeGuy(1) Disputed
2 points

Where is the arguement here? You're just insulting people and saying they're reasoning relates to their personal life. I fail to see your undeniable logic about how we have free will?

Side: No
2 points

You had a choice to respond to my post, or not. You chose to respond, hence, free will.

Side: Yes
2 points

Our society is based on the thought that human beings have free will, the justice system exists to punish people for actions which are deemed unlawful; and we reward people who commit brave or selfless acts. Regardless of whether we have free will or not, society functions on the belief that we do, and disputing this would require a fundamental shift in society's mentality.

Side: Yes
1 point

It could be argued that all options are pre-determined and that we are free to choose from those select options, that in fact determinism acts as a limiting factor for free will

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, this would be a more palatable way of looking at determinism. Causes and the laws of nature 'limit' the choices of action available to us at a given time, rather than restricting it to just one.

Side: Yes
1 point

While psychology can offer some evidence in favour of determinism (our brains have evolved automatic responses to certain scenarios, i.e fight or flight), that evidence does not necessarily disprove free-will. Rather, it means we have to reevaluate free-will. I personally define free-will as the ability to make my own choices based on what I can do in the situation and what occurs to me in my current mental state. So with that definition, there are already limitations on free-will.

Determinisim explains that our choices are predetermined by our genetics, upbringing, and environment. But if our choices were predetermined, then why do we consider potential alternatives? So, what if instead of determining our every action in the future, that background information simply influences the choices and alternatives we consider. Our choices may be limited, but it is still our choice to make. Half a theory and half an argument, sure, but I feel that this description can satisfactorily explain free-will and allow it to coexist with scientific evidence commonly attributed to determinism.

Side: Yes
1 point

We can all choose what to do, even though we do not always know what good or bad will come out of our choice. I may choose to not drink coffee, and not want to fail a test, but then I may fall asleep during the test due to lack of coffee and therefore fail the test. We still have free choice, just not all knowledge.

Side: Yes
3 points

The term "free will" is defined as "the ability to choose without any predisposed inclination one way or the other". I would make a distinction between the terms "free will" and "choice". Free will by definition is an attribute none of us truly have. For example; I can't walk outside and freely decide to flap my arms and fly away. I don't possess the mechanics or necessary properties to achieve this. Therefore, I am limited or constrained to my physical properties, thus I don't possess the free will to fly.

I think it was Johnathon Edwards who once said "We always choose according to the strongest inclination at the moment of choice". In other words our choices are constrained by predisposed inclinations, bents, compulsions and other external and internal factors that play a role in how we choose. I personally believe we don't have free will as defined by its exact definition. However, I do believe we have free choice and this distinction is more accurate by definition.

Side: No

Do something for me: Say the words "Summertime sadness" out loud. Right now.

Did you do it? Did you not? Why/why not? Consider your choice, for a moment. Keep that in mind, I'll get back to it shortly.

Free will is an illusory idea because for it to be true, a human being would need to be above the natural laws of the universe. Your brain is made of neurons, these neurons made of atoms, these atoms made of subatomic particles, and all of them respond to stimulus from external forces in the same, predictable way as the rest of all matter.

To use the example I set up earlier, your decision to choose whether you did or did not say those words aloud is based on how your brain responded to the information your eyes gleaned from the screen you're reading my post on. Your brains response to this is dictated by the pattern your neurons make, which is partly decided by your genetics and partly decided by the experiences you've had.

I know you might disagree with me here, but put it this way - you, a unique individual person, spent some time considering whether you would or would not say "Summertime Sadness" aloud.

You did this purely because I talked about it. Had I not mentioned it, the topic would never have occurred to you, and the thoughts would never have happened. Where's the free will there?

Side: No
Amarel(5669) Clarified
2 points

Just to be clear, it sounds like you are saying that we have no free will because we do not control the stimuli which cause consideration (your summertime sadness thing), and because we have reasons for doing things. If I have two options before me, I will weigh my options against my experience and in light of my personality. Based on this I choose. This is what is meant by free will. When people say we don't have free will, it seems to be because we do not act randomly. I would say that random action without reason would look more like a lack of free will than what we do.

Side: Yes
admiralbacon(229) Clarified
1 point

You're on the right track, but there's an important point you've missed, and it's in this part of your argument:

I will weigh my options against my experience and in light of my personality.

Your experience is the sum of all historical external stimulii. Your personality is the same, but with some genetic predisposition thrown in.

On the topic of random acts, we use the word "random" to describe acts that are too complex for us to predict. In physics, there is no true random. This is why computer programs have such a difficult time generating truly "random" numbers; it simply isn't a real thing.

Side: Yes
admiralbacon(229) Clarified
1 point

Just to clarify, this doesn't mean life isn't worth living or anything. I've found that, since I came to accept this, the only thing that has changed about me is that I now judge people far less harshly than I used to. Of course, this is after many years of existential fear, so y'know, maybe not the most immediately rewarding world-view to hold.

Not really relevant to the topic, but probably important to mention nonetheless.

Side: Yes
2 points

Edit; double post.

Side: No
2 points

If a person is mentally ill, say they have a chemical imbalance in their head, they can get medications to adjust the chemical imbalance. If you are of sound mind then your chemicals are functioning within a range that is considered "normal". Behaviors we produce stem from chemical reactions that are within a range that our brains allow.

This deosn't make us midless drones by any stretch, that would be quite hyperbolic. We have a degree of control over our decisions that we make but the range of these decisions are confined by our biology.

There are instances that we can sometimes do something against our biology, that is we can be forced in some way to make a decision by outside forces that we normally would not, but our brains will react negatively resulting in effects such as trauma, depression etc.

Autonomous is a better representation of our condition than the concept of free will. This doesn't throw out concepts like morality but instead sheds a different light on those ideas.

Side: No
2 points

Yes, so are you suggesting a kind of compatibilism, where causal determinism (including the chemistry of your brain being constrained by the laws of nature) is compatible with free will? Causes in our past and in our bodies determine our actions, but provided 'we' choose to perform the action, it was a free one? Chemical reactions in my body as well as external stimuli might lead me to go and make a sandwich, but provided no one forced me to do it, the action was 'free' and of my own choosing.

Side: No
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Hmmm, I would say not strict compatabilism but yes like you say a kind of.

In your example of the sandwich, feeding yourself is more of filling a need or stimuli inciting action but deciding what to eat is a choice sure. You could also decide not to eat (through depression, grieving etc.) but eating is pretty much something you will do on the regular if functioning within normal ranges.

This choice in food is not a total choice either though, of course it is but only to some degree. Having a sandwich is effected by your background and current situation. What to eat is learned and culturally peoples staple diets vary by region. This is not to say you do not have preferences, but preferences can be influenced by biology , say like people that can taste the a bitter chemical in lima beans. This is where our autonomous actions can really get limited by outside forces, of course some more than others.

Side: Yes
2 points

I think that free will is true because if it isn't how do we control our actions

Side: No
TrumpsHair(310) Clarified
2 points

Who says we do?

Side: Yes
Victor_moore(1) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with you Ewen, your argument has little merit and does not rightly illustrate the issue.

Personally, I believe determinism is the only true answer to this predicament. Since every physical object is governed by physical necessity, and since we are considered entirely physical, we are governed by the laws of nature and therefore all our actions are caused. No free will.

Side: Yes
2 points

It honestly seem illogical to have not have any free will? Think about the sheer anarchy that wood ensue if all things happened without any reason?

Side: No
2 points

Free will says that we have the choice to choose the events in which we lead our lives but i think that is only part of the story. When someone has to make a choice, i agree that they have free will, they can choose left or right but i think it's the result that actually occurs is the weak link in the free will debate. Nobody can prove that the outcome was completely random. According to determinism, every natural event has a cause and making unrestricted choices is a natural event, therefore the result of the choice is predetermined, not a choice of free will. For example, if i were driving home and i had to turn left or right, then i have the choice to turn either way, free will, but i turn right because that is the way home. That choice was determined by the fact that my home was down that road and not the other and that was driving home.

Side: No