5. Is there any compelling argument for the conclusion that we lack free will?

There are two main arguments put forth which attempt to show that we lack free will, one is fatalism and the other is determinism. However, there are also different definitions of the concept and meaning of free will and this further complicates the debate on whether we possess free will or not. For example, one account of free will by Hume says that free will is the possession the ability to choose whether to carry out an action or not without any external impediments or constraints (Russell, 2007). Another account of free will would be one which states that free will is when a person is free to act upon his or her desires and beliefs.

One obstacle to free will would be the concept of fatalism. Unlike determinism, there is no debate on whether fatalism is compatible with free will at all, it is never compatible. Fatalism is the view that whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, no matter what we do (Kane, 2005). If fatalism is true, then no one has any free will because no matter what you do, what is eventually going to happen to you will happen regardless of your actions and you have no control over anything in your life whatsoever (Garrett, 2011).

The next concept which is closely linked to that of free will is the concept of determinism. Deterministic theory states that two systems which are in exactly the same state as one another at a given time [] will at all future times be in the same state as one another (Butterfield, 2005). Determinism dictates that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature (Hoefer, 2010). The idea of determinism appears to pose a problem to the idea of free will because if our actions have already been determined by prior events, as well as physical factors such as our genetic makeup, the environment we grew up in, the weather etc. then it cannot be said that we are free to choose our actions, since it appears we have been forced into whatever line of action 1

we take by events largely beyond our control. As such, free will and determinism do not appear to coexist.

Philosophers who agree that determinism is an obstacle to free will however, differ in their agreement on whether determinism exists at all. Philosophers who argue that free will exists and therefore determinism does not are termed libertarians and if what they argue is true, it would mean that there is no compelling argument for the conclusion that we lack free will. This however is not the case because of what Kane terms The libertarian dilemma (2005, p. 33) which is that while libertarianism is incompatible with determinism, it is also appears incompatible with indeterminism, which refers to events which happen by chance. Libertarianism appears incompatible with indeterminism because any action whose path was determined by chance is hardly one which is free. On the contrary, unexpected events which happen by chance may actually impinge upon ones freedom. Take for example, if you wanted to go on a picnic on a certain day and checked the weather forecast, which said it would be sunny. However, the small chance (which always exists) that the weather forecast was wrong happened instead, and this chance occurrence (of rain) prevented you from carrying out your plans. Hence, to make their argument truly plausible, libertarians need to show that not only is libertarianism incompatible with determinism, it is also incompatible with indeterminism (Kane, 2005).

Another problem with libertarianism would be in the case of Buridans ass. This allegory by Jean Buridan describes an ass which starves to death because it was placed in an equidistant position from two bales of hay and as such has no reason to choose one over the other. This situation, in which an individual has exactly the same inclination to choose either of two choices, is known as Liberty of Indifference. This is obviously a problem for libertarianism

because it means that even if someone was placed in the position of the ass, if he or she picked one of the two bales of hay rather than starved to death, although technically it would be a free choice, his or her choice would depend entirely on chance or luck which is under no ones control and hence does not amount to free will (Kane, 2005).

On the other hand, some philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Mill to name a few), feel that while determinism is true, it is also true that we still have free will because they define free will as being able to act upon a belief without any physical or emotional constraints. Meanwhile, other factors which built up to the situation leading you to make a choice (prior events and physical factors, as mentioned earlier) are not considered constraints as long as you are free to make your decision about your action at that moment. Philosophers who follow this train of thought are known as compatibilists. According to them, we do not lack free will because you are free to what you want (or not to do it) and do so without any impediments and constraints. This explanation works because they have defined freedom differently from incompatibilists, if they defined it the same way as incompatibilists, then we do not possess free will. Their counter to the argument, that we do not possess free will in a deeper sense as described by the incompatibilists definition of free will (which requires compatibility with indeterminism), is that indeterminism is incoherent in the first place because it means that for the same string of events leading up to an event, there could have been a different future. But the fact remains that the agent made one choice over the other, presumably for a reason. As such it is senseless to say that this agent had the free choice to choose between two options because various thought processes and other factors led to the choice the agent made in the first place and it would be irrational for the agent to choose the other choice given the same past. Hence, for the compatibilists, the only way an agent would have chosen otherwise would be if the past was different (Kane, 2009).

Both groups of philosophers, regardless of their differences regarding determinism, have agreed that individuals possess free will. There are also a (rare) few who say that determinism and free will are incompatible and hence free will does not exist. These are known as hard determinists. Galen Strawsons argument for hard determinism is called the Basic Argument. The Basic Argument states that unless you are the absolute creator and cause of yourself (causa sui), you cannot be said to possess the true free will that libertarians refer to. His argument is that what you are as a person (your character and beliefs etc) are responsible for the actions you carry out today. As such, to be held responsible for the actions you do today, you must also be responsible for the way you are now as a person. To be held responsible for the way you are would mean that you must have done some action in the past which (in some way or another) made you the way you are now, however, for you to be held responsible for this action committed in the past, you must be responsible for the way you were then and so on and so forth in a regress till it reaches a point in time which was beyond your control, such as your conception (2010). One counter to this would be that although an individual cannot be held responsible for his or her childhood and genetic makeup, as the individual matures, he or she is no longer powerless (as when he or she was a baby or a small child) to make further decisions regarding his or her future.

Ultimately, it can be seen that an argument can be made for the conclusion that we lack free will because Strawsons Basic Arguments premises all seem sound. However, it is not a compelling argument because intuitively, it cannot be said that we totally lack any sort of freedom of choice, even if various factors may nudge us more in the direction of one choice than another. On the other hand although random chance may also appear to interfere with free will, it can also be observed that it is not a predominant force in determining the

outcomes of our actions and as such because we can be seen (to a very large extent) to be responsible for the outcome of our conscious actions and choices it cannot be concluded that free will is an illusion. As such it can be concluded that there is no compelling argument which can back up the claim that we do not possess free will.

BUTTERFIELD, JEREMY. 2005. Determinism and indeterminism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/Q025 GARRETT, BRIAN, 2011. What is this Thing Called Metaphysics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. HOEFER, CARL. 2010. Causal Determinism. [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/. [Accessed 30 May 12]. KANE, ROBERT, 2005. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. RUSSELL, PAUL. 2007. Hume on Free Will. [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/. [Accessed 31 May 12]. STRAWSON, GALE, 2010. Freedom and Belief. 2nd ed. USA: Oxford University Press.