Although it seems obvious what \"free will\" is, we keep using different (and fr

Question

Although it seems obvious what "free will" is, we keep using different (and frequently incompatible) definitions of it without realizing our inconsistency. What's more, we tend to say things about free will that are blatantly contradictory without realizing it.

For an example of inconsistency: We say that free will is the ability to determine (for ourselves) what we will do and what we will decide. On the other hand, we also say that it's freedom from anything determining what we will do or decide. Do you see the inconsistency? If you have reasons that determine your actions or decisions, then your action/decision is determined by those reasons. Even if they're yourreasons, working inside your brain, and the result of being the sort of person you are, they determine your decision. We don't like that idea (i.e., that our decisions are determined by anything), so we insist that free will is being in a situation where nothing determines our actions or decisions. If that's the case, then you don't determine your action/decision either--which really doesn't sound like free will. So which is it? (Do you see the inconsistency now?)

For an example of saying contradictory things: We often say that when we have free will, there are multiple possible things we could have chosen. We don't mean usually mean merely that we thought there were multiple ways it could turn out, but rather that the universe really could turn out in various different ways. However, we also often talk about the reasons for choosing the way we do, and that our choices are the result of the reasons/values/thought processes that we considered on the way to making our decision. While it's true that we frequently face complex decisions where the outcome of our thought process (or decision-making process) is uncertain, there are other times when the choice is obvious. Seriously, now: Even though you tell yourself that you're free to press a button that would cause you to feel excruciating pain for the rest of your life, you'd never press the button. You might even say that you could press it if you wanted to, but the fact is that you don't want to. Some decisions are obvious. So is that a free decision even though it couldn't possibly have turned out differently? (The only way for it to turn out differently would be to revise reality and change what was true about the world when you made the decision not to press it. Maybe someone was threatening your family if you didn't press it, or something like that--but that wasn't the scenario.)

When you start to pay attention to these sorts of things and be careful about what you're saying, the issue of free will becomes much more complex. It isn't just a matter of whether free will exists, it's an even deeper matter: What is free will in the first place?

Please understand that there are various intelligent responses to that question. Soft determinists have a different understanding of free will than libertarians. (We're talking about metaphysical libertarianism--about free will--here, not political libertarianism.) So your goal in your response should be to think through the important issues and to develop your understanding.

Explanation / Answer

Free Will is the rational capability of choosing right over wrong, irrespective of it's consequences under all circumstances. It's not the ability of choosing the good because the definition of good changes according to the circumstances and consequences. Free Will is the choice of being truthful, honest,sincere, loving etc. irrespective of the circumstances and context.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.