Essay Sample on Free Will

The problem of free will comes down to whether we know we can have free choice or not. Many philosophers believe that people's actions are causally determined. Casually determined means that activities happen because influences were causing them to happen that is not free will. For example, a person turned left because of many factors. These influences could include the design of the street, where they need to go, and their personality. Some philosophers reject causal determinism entirely and say that we have complete free will. Both stances have issues that they do not address. Hard determinism does not recognize there are many instances where people make decisions free of outside influence, and soft determinism does not acknowledge that some things happen because of outside influence. Let's say someone was held at gunpoint and forced to give up their money. In that instance, it seems obvious they do not have free will, so soft determinism cannot reasonably explain how they would. Hard determinism fails to acknowledge instances when people pick an option randomly and that there was the possibility that they would choose something else. The elimination of those options leaves indeterminism where both causal determinism and free will can coexist. The two ideas seem to have a deep tension inherently, but we have not captured what we mean when saying free will.

The Cambridge dictionary defines free will as "the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence." The problem of free will is that using the definition given; there does appear to be a tension between free will and causally determined things. A seemingly simple fix can fix the problem of free will. One, the definition needs to be updated because it does not capture what we mean.

We can tell there is an issue with the definition of free will because it eliminates the possibility of free will almost entirely when it seems obvious; we at least have some sense of free will. People make decisions daily, and while we are creatures of habit and tend to lean towards the same things, there is the possibility that we will pick differently. For example, if Abby drank apple juice, she still could have chosen the orange juice, which was possible. We can also infer we have free will because we can observe differences between us and animals who do not have free will. Most people do not often pick a choice just for the sake of picking; we can analyze and critique our motivations. People do not only want something; we can want to want it. Not every action is determined through our own free will. Sometimes people do things because they do not have a choice or don know any better. For example, an addict's brain is biochemically changed to make them dependent on the substance. However, many addicts want to change, which shows that we can regain control even when we do not have complete control.

Seeing that there is free will and casually determined things in our lives, how does the new definition reflect this? People have free will when they can act freely according to their desires, and they are sane enough to control their thoughts. The sanity aspect is a massive part because people with certain mental disorders are not controlling their thoughts. Babies also fall into this category because they have not yet figured out the basic concepts that make them sane people. Some basic ideas that make us human are empathy, knowing right from wrong, the ability to think and analyze, and so on. With the example of the addict, their addiction has affected their sanity, and they lose control and their free will.

One could raise the argument how do we know this definition is better than the old one? If the issue comes down to a verbal dispute, how are we going to be able to settle on a new definition? There is no reason to believe the modified definition is better than the older definition or that this definition fits what we are talking about when we say the term free will.

The previous concerns are valid but can be easily disputed. While it is true that it is hard to define free will, like how it is hard to define happiness, it can be done. To decide if the definition is good, we can cover all the examples of what we mean by free will to determine that this definition is better than the old definition. If Sarah were to pick her breakfast randomly, that would be free will. If she was given a few choices, the argument could be made that she would not have free will with the previous definition, but she does have fewer options. The newer definition also allows for cases of causal determinism, so it does not negate the fact that it does exist as soft determinism did. Many external influences do influence us, but the internal influences that help us make decisions are part of our will. For example, just because Liam craves chocolate and eats some does not mean it is casually determined. Liam wanted it and wanted to want it, so he ate it. While motivations aren't always so simple, there is a unique characteristic that makes people into people where we can analyze our reasons and see if we want to keep them or change them. 

In conclusion, indeterminism is the best answer to the problem of free will because it takes both sides into account and includes both seemingly accurate positions. By fixing the definition for what we mean by free will, philosophers can reduce tension between the two seemingly opposing ideas. By correcting the description, we can include all instances where it's obvious we have free will and aren't just walking down life paths with no power to do anything about our lives.

Work Cited

Cambridge University Press. (2021). Free will. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved October 5, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-will.