PROMPT:
Subject: Free Will
Briefly present your thesis and arguments for and against it.
Then explain what you believe to be the best argument and explain why.
The "best argument" is the one that provides the best rational support.
I have already had a colleague tell me what they think needs to be changed. It is highlighted in blue. Edit the document to what you would personally write to adhere to my colleague's comments.
Explain why you made such edits.
The following is my essay:
Free will is one of the most fascinating topics in philosophical discussion. You may want to know what free will is. According to Vihvelin, "free will" is not affected by the past and choices are not determined by the past (Vihvelin). Free will is the ability and power to make a decision, and behave voluntarily.
For example, human beings can be the authors of their own actions and freely reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. But some scholars are against free will; Leucippus was one of them, he claims "Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity" (Fragment 569). This is called "Philosophical Determinism". It is about cause and effect. Leucippus also references Democritus' ancient idea that causal deterministic laws control the motion of atoms, and that everything - including human minds - consists merely of atoms inside a void. Determinism in ethics, the view that human actions are entirely controlled by previous conditions, operates under the laws of nature. This implies that events are inevitable consequences of precursory causes (i.e. "free will").What you have stated is not representative of free will. Obviously there is a major conflict between free will and determinism. Upon this problem, I came up a theory which I believe free will is just an illusion, and I think free will theory is invalid, thus determinism theory is not invalid. A good clear thesis statement. Now what is your plan? How do you plan to demonstrate this in your paper?
Determinism is about cause and effect, and it is in our life everywhere. You have already stated this. Think about the reason behind this paper, the reason I wrote this paper is because I need to pass this philosophy class. Not only that, my degree created a cause for me to take this course. Your degree did not cause. Your degree plan requires certain course. But that is not an example of causality. I could not "choose" to take this course, but the moment I "chose" to take this course indicate I am reacting to "cause". You are responding to a condition or ? What is a cause? From a different perspective, a reader who reads this paper also has their own cause. I think you are using the word cause inappropriately. In other words, if everything has a cause, according to determinism, every event has a preceding (antecedent) event. then people's will, will not be free and free will is just an illusion. Author Steven Cahn gives us an example of determinism. A person who feels pain on his arm may see a doctor. The result of his diagnosis may be "there is no cause" but the patient knows this to be false. He knows there must be "a reason" that causes his arm to feels pain (209). This patient's pain may come from his physical pain or may come from a mental pain which people do not know, but the point is no matter where this pain came from, this patient is experiencing an "event", and if this is an event then there must be a cause. Similarly, Cahn gives another example in his article. A person who reads Exploring Philosophy may suppose his decision was uncaused, but this person initially had a will to acquire knowledge about philosophy. He lost free will once he was willing (209). Basically, people often consider they have free will to make their own decision, but I would like to consider that decision is "made by a cause", a cause which relates to human desires and beliefs. Basically this is the definition of hard determinism. So what is new here?
Human actions are due to desires and beliefs which also make a case for determinism. This means there is desire in each person's mind, and this desire is also the cause of actions. Businesses succeed in predicting people's behaviors or their reactions based on those people's desire. In the book Exploring Philosophy, Cahn utilizes an example of a store owner. How many shoppers visit a store will affect that store owner's increasing or decreasing price of their products. This supports the theory of determinism (209). This is makes sense if a store has fewer shoppers visit, their price of products should be lower than a more shoppers visit store. And this prediction is based on human desires a decent product with a cheaper price. Shopping, in other words, is likes reading. People do not know what they will see at the store. Nevertheless, if they come into a store that is driven by their desires. At last their desires to see something new. Like other human actions, reading is one of the most famous activities. When they read, they will have a reaction as they continue to read because they expect to know more about each of a characters' behavior concerning their role in the book. If there is no such information given in the book, readers may conclude this book is poorly written (Cahn 209). As we can see desires and beliefs are the major cause of human actions.
Nevertheless, Thomas Nagel claims there is nothing up to the point at which a person chooses, which can affect what his choice will be at the end. It remains an open possibility that he will choose "A" until the moment when he actually chooses "B". It isn't determined in advance (200). So Nagel is arguing for Free Will. From my perspective, to answer this question, I think that's person's choice is based on his desires. However, that person may or may not know their consciousness at that moment. But, it is possible that a person may know their consciousness in that moment. This means the person's decision will be based on a color, smell or some other cause, indifferent of their consciousness. Also, I think there is a possibility of determinism. This means all possible outcomes are pre-determined in some way. For example, a person goes from home to school. The only reason that a person makes one choice over another choice, is because the person was trigged to make a specific choice. A different trigger will result in a different choice in the end.
Instead of just referring to "my first and second premises" restate (briefly) your first and second premises. According to my first and second premise both are true, upon this view, free will is not true and determinism is not false. Therefore, people can get a better understanding about determinism that is "In every event that occurs is caused to occur and is a causation. A person's present actions are events caused by his previous desires and beliefs. In other words, everything has a cause then there is no will that is free" (Cahn 210). Because upon those analysis results previously is completely against free will, therefore I conclude free will is just an illusion, and this theory should be accepted.