Andrew Waters

Paper #2 - Prompt #2
Philosophy 1000
Professor Israelsen

Is there an answer to the question, does free will exist? In this paper I will argue that

we must affirm libertarian free will to make sense of moral responsibility. This topic has been

argued for many years because neither religion nor science has adequately and/or completely

answered the question. Do we have free will or do things in our lives occur by a cause and effect

model rather than free will choices? This question is more complex than it appears on the

surface. When addressing these philosophical theories all research must be carefully pondered in

order to develop a meaningful argument. Obviously, most people would say that we are all

responsible for our own choices, but there are those who believe that we may not be, or at least

not fully. In this paper I will take a position, present the opposing argument, critique the

opposing argument, and provide support for my position.

First, what is libertarian free will? Libertarians affirm free will is the theory that

people are free to make choices in their lives. They further argue that chance or random events

also play a part in peoples decision making. The idea that people can deliberate about a decision

is used as an argument that they have free will. If people truly lack libertarian free will then it

would be difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. I further believe that responsibility

is impossible without libertarian freedom. To truly be held accountable people must be the
decision makers. Additionally, if accountability doesnt exist then people would not be praised

for their accomplishments and there would be no social standing, only predetermined paths.

This is not to say that people are not products of their environment. A child may be

shaped by things like neglect or abuse or moving from foster home to foster home. However, I

believe that even if people have harmful things happen to them in their youth, they are still

responsible for their actions. Are they more likely to commit crimes or do harmful things to

others? Maybe, but for every abused person who commits a crime there are others who were

abused who did not commit a crime, thus X does not always equal Y. In a civilized society

accountability for our actions is necessary. (Kane, 4 & 5)

I believe that we must affirm libertarian free will to make sense of moral responsibility.

Libertarians believe that there are factors that affect how people make choices, like beliefs,

motivations, desires, and other emotional factors. An example of making our own choices would

be choosing to purchase a sports car or a minivan for your family. Having free will allows the

person to make the decision of either option and the choice may be dependent on desires, beliefs,

motivations, etc. Ultimately, this boils down to the freedom of choice not necessarily the

outcome.

The opposing view of Libertarian free will is that of Determinism. Determinism is the

theory that all events are simply cause and effect and based on prior experiences. The

Consequence Argument stated informally by Peter Van Inwagen states, If determinism is true,

then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is

not up to us what went on before we were born; and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature
are. Therefore, the consequences of these things including our own acts are not up to

us. (Kane, 22) Critics further argue that events that are random or occur by chance are believed

to impede free will, because the individual did not make a choice. This means that people are

not responsible for their own actions because they didnt actually make the choices. The choices

were predetermined based on cause and effect and prior experiences. Therefore, an argument can

be made that if determinism is true then people cannot ultimately be held responsible for their

actions.

The opposing view seems somewhat implausible. If all lives had a predetermined path

then people would never deliberate or change their path. There are many times in society that

people make choices outside of what loved one would think they would make. How could this

be explained if our paths were all predetermined? Where does this theory account for self or

character or even real time situations and emotions? One could argue that if determinism is true

then it would make it possible to label people as either a 0 or a 1, which in turn would

substantially limit the meaning of life or reason for living.

Further the opposing view tries to use quantitative data to explain the cause and effect for

every person on a larger scale than one-to-one. Rule Alpha. There is nothing anyone can do to

change what must be the case (or what is necessarily so) and Rule Beta. If there is nothing

anyone can do to change X, and nothing anyone can do to change the fact that Y is a necessary

consequence of X, then there is nothing anyone can do to change Y either. This is the definition

of cause and effect with little room for variance. An example to disprove this would be identical

twins growing up in the same environment and making different choices as they progress
through life. Arguably the same X does not always result in the same Y; cause and effect. (Kane,

25)

To further support my thesis, I believe that our society has subscribed to the theory that

citizens of the world have libertarian free will. This is evidenced by the fact that we have a legal

system that holds its citizens accountable for their actions. We even have legal defenses that

describe under what circumstances a person is not responsible for their own actions, like mental

health or extreme trauma. We even have legal cases where minors are tried in an adult court

because we believe they should have known better and should be held accountable for their

actions. This means that, without extenuating circumstances, all individuals are held accountable

for their actions.

I think that libertarian free will is further evidenced by social programs created to

improve peoples choices and lives. What about programs our societies have in place to help

people make better choices, like addiction rehabilitation, prison rehabilitation, job rehabilitation,

marriage counseling, etc. All of these kinds of social programs help people look at their current

situations from a new perspective. The new perspective challenges them to look at other viable

choices that will produce different outcomes. There is research to show that these programs are

at least modestly successful in regards to outcomes. If determinism is true then none of these

programs would be able to create a situation where people make different choices. Although,

when studying how people make choices one may be able to draw some likely conclusions, but

to subscribe to the theory that if X occurs then Y must occur, seems extreme.
 In conclusion, I have argued that we must affirm libertarian free will to make sense of

moral responsibility. I think human beings want to believe that we all have free will and make

our own choices. It makes us feel like we have control over our lives and can change directions

if we so choose. These ideas likely influenced my thesis and how I responded to the research

regarding determinism. Even though in this paper I have argued against determinism, I by no

means think that the determinism theory is without merit. The black and white nature of the

cause and effect determinism theory makes it difficult to accept. I do however, believe that

libertarian free will exists in our world and that it is necessary to hold people accountable; our

society demands nothing less.

Works Cited

Soccio, D.J. (2016) Archetypes of Wisdom. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

Kane, Robert. Reading #1

Kane, Robert. Reading #2