Do Humans have free will, if so, how free is it?   In other words, are all human actions determined, if so how so, to what degree?

Adopt a metaphysical position on the nature of freedom or determinism. In other words, which of these three theories do you think is most accurate in describing the human condition and why do you think so?

State what determines human actions according to that position. 

Present a reasoned criticism of the position.

Present a reasoned reply to the criticism.  

Why do you prefer that theory to the other two? 

How do you refute the critiques of your position? 

            As the world hears more and more excuses about horrible atrocities, we often hear, it is not their fault, but so and so, or some factor forced these people to commit these actions. This leads  to thoughts and questions about human free will. Are we really slaves to fate, destiny, and conditioning? Or perhaps we are absolutely free, and concoct these stories, excuses, and situations to place our blames, instead of taking responsibilities for our own actions, and the subsequent consequences. The latter for me, rings the most true, as a result, the libertarian position best describes human conditions.

            According to libertarianism the determining factors of human actions are determined by nothing. Each individual human makes up their own mind to do whatever action they intend on taking. There is no necessary pattern, past behaviors or such governing or promoting these actions. According to existentialism, promoters and defenders of the free will of humans, existence precedes essence. What this means, is that there is o pre-existent essence that is imbued and placed within humans. Humans only exist when they exist, they cannot exist before they conceived. There is no essence of humanism, which flows into a human when they are conceived. We cannot exist as a human until we have defined ourselves. We are defined by our actions, and our actions alone. We cannot come into an exists with a definition, because there is nothing prior to existence to define ourselves. We, humans are what we make ourselves to be, nothing else nothing more.

What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing — as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.[1]

There is no past or future, there is only the present. The past only exists in our memories, which as a result only exist in the present. The past does not and cannot exist as a reality. Therefore the past cannot dictate and determine our present and future actions. The future cannot exist either, because we are always in the present. We are free to make any kind of action, our actions maybe influenced by any number of things, but in the end, we still make the conscious decision. The past cannot make or control us.

“There is NO PAST.  There is NO FUTURE.  They do not exist.  There is only the present.  You can not touch the past.  You can not see it, hear it or prove that it exists.  Not in any way does the past have real BEING. The past exists only in our memory AND THAT EXISTS ONLY IN THE PRESENT.  Thus, the past can not determine in any way what we do because it DOES NOT EXIST.  Neither does the future exist!  We are always in the present and we are free to choose what of the past (our memories) we shall use and in what way we shall use it.  We are also free to project into the future any idea we choose of what it is we want to be, including dead!  It is all a matter of choice.[2]”

 We each are free to make our own minds. We may be pressed and pushed to make a certain decision. However at the end the decision is ultimately up to us. There is nothing that can force us to do something we do not want to do. We may commit actions we do not like, but we have made the conscious decision to take that action. There are always choices to be made. We may not like the choices and their consequences. We choice if we will follow what is right and just defined by society. There may be extreme pressures to conform, however as with all actions and such it is up to us to decide if we wish to accept the consequences of our actions.

This school of thought is hard, harsh, and demanding of humans. Most humans do not want to accept their faults, and would like to place blame on whatever they can. The critics of existentialism and as a result critics of libertarianism claim that it promotes pessimism, “underlined all that is ignominious in the human situation, for depicting what is mean, sordid or base to the neglect of certain things that possess charm and beauty and belong to the brighter side of human nature[3]”, judgment and values passed are too high and meaningless since humans themselves choice them..

Critics claim that the freedom of libertarianism and existentialism promotes pessimism, despair, and other such negative feelings. This philosophy concentrates too much on the flaws and failures of man kind. It paints a dark and gloomy picture of humans and society. Man is seen as weak, cowardly, and base. On the contrary, existentialism is more optimistic then pessimistic. The status quo, and everyone around you, tells those who are weak, cowardly and base, that they are a product of their environment, and circumstances. It is not their fault, and nothing they can do about it. It is something that they are left with and condemned. They fated and doomed to misery. Existentialism does nothing of that, but gives hope to them. It says we are our own masters, able to choice and pick our futures. Critics associate Existentialism with pessimism, because existentialism points out the obvious.  

“We have now, I think, dealt with a certain number of the reproaches against existentialism. You have seen that it cannot be regarded as a philosophy of quietism since it defines man by his action; nor as a pessimistic description of man, for no doctrine is more optimistic, the destiny of man is placed within himself. Nor is it an attempt to discourage man from action since it tells him that there is no hope except in his action, and that the one thing which permits him to have life is the deed… Nevertheless, when one says, “You are nothing else but what you live,” it does not imply that an artist is to be judged solely by his works of art, for a thousand other things contribute no less to his definition as a man. What we mean to say is that a man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings.[4]”

We can rise above our cowardly, weak and baseness. There is nothing stopping us but ourselves. If we have enough determination and willpower, we can do anything and everything we want to. This is by no means pessimistic! Existentialism states that people are not born a certain way. They are not born cowards. Their blood has nothing to do with their actions or how they will act. It is only their own actions, if they commit cowardly and base acts, then it is only their lack of courage, or willpower. It does not condemn them like other philosophies. It gives them a chance to rise above and beyond.

“In the light of all this, what people reproach w with is not, after all, our pessimism, but the sternness of our optimism. If people condemn our works of fiction, in which we describe characters that are base, weak, cowardly and sometimes even frankly evil, it is not only because those characters are base, weak, cowardly or evil. For suppose that, like Zola, we showed that the behaviour of these characters was caused by their heredity, or by the action of their environment upon them, or by determining factors, psychic or organic. People would be reassured, they would say, “You see, that is what we are like, no one can do anything about it.” But the existentialist, when he portrays a coward, shows him as responsible for his cowardice. He is not like that on account of a cowardly heart or lungs or cerebrum, he has not become like that through his physiological organism; he is like that because he has made himself into a cowardly actions. There is no such thing as a cowardly temperament. There are nervous temperaments; there is what is called impoverished blood, and there are also rich temperaments. But the man whose blood is poor is not a coward for all that, for what produces cowardice is the act of giving up or giving way; and a temperament is not an action. A coward is defined by the deed that he has done. What people feel obscurely, and with horror, is that the coward as we present him is guilty of being a coward. What people would prefer would be to be born either a coward or a hero. One of the charges most often laid against the Chemins de la Liberte. is something like this “But, after all, these people being so base, how can you make them into heroes?” That objection is really rather comic, for it implies that people are born heroes: and that is, at bottom, what such people would like to think. If you are born cowards, you can be quite content. you can do nothing about it and you will be cowards all your lives whatever you do; and if you are born heroes you can again be quite content; you will be heroes all your lives eating and drinking heroically. Whereas the existentialist says that the coward makes himself cowardly, the hero makes himself heroic; and that there is always a possibility for the coward to give up cowardice and for the hero to stop being a hero. What counts is the total commitment, and it is not by a particular case or particular action that you are committed altogether.[5]”

Then there are accusations that our values are meaningless because we choice them ourselves. When critics say this, they are assuming all humans will pick the coward and base values. They fail to see that the freeman will decide and pick values that will consequently affect him and the world. It also fails to see the consequences of certain beliefs of values. Those who wish to live in a society where there are certain values acceptable. That one would do receive what one does to another. We all must look at our actions and find it acceptable to ourselves, if we would like the same treatment. The actions we find acceptable, set a precedent for others to follow.

“When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I a n a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.[6]”

The values coming from God are no more meaningful then the values we prescribe for ourselves. We do not need a God to tell us as human beings the values and the choices to live a decent and civil life. We do not need a God to tell us beating our lives is wrong, that stealing is wrong.“In other word — and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism — nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself[7]”

Then there are those who say we cannot pass judgment on others. We are able to judge, and we should quiet frankly. The problem, lies within the way the critics use the term judge. We are always constantly judging others. It is our freedom to do so. It is impossible to have liberty and freedom without an agreement among humans. We must agree and abide by certain guidelines in order to maintain and have a civil lifestyle. Those who do not, are free to dissent, and live their way. However they must pay the consequences of such. We cannot make liberty our aim without looking and judging others actions. Then there would be no consensus.

“We will freedom for freedom’s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon tho freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others d the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. Thus, in the name of that will to freedom which is implied in freedom itself, I can form judgments upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom. Those who hide from this total freedom, in a guise of solemnity or with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary, when it is merely an accident of the appearance of the human race on earth — I shall call scum. But neither cowards nor scum can be identified except upon the plane of strict authenticity. Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal.[8]”

We can disagree and take actions against those we disagree with. However the question is, are we willing to pay the price and consequences of such? People always claim excuses for reasons they cannot do something. I prefer this position over the other two positions as a result of that. Honestly, and seriously, we can do whatever we want. There is no one to blame for our failures on. Why am I in the place where I am today? It is due to my own failures and no one else. I cannot blame my parents, my upbringing, fate, destiny or circumstances. If I had tried harder and studied more back when I was young, would I be in the same situation? I admit I like all humans, often try to place blame of my failures saying I’m not smart enough, or that teacher was out to get me, or that test was rigged, or such and so event caused my current woes. However if one looks and reviews one’s action honestly and deeply. One will only see how and what they could have done. That even thought certain events took place to make things difficult. It is ultimate up to the individual to overcome these situations. Life is not easy and to be handed over to one on a silver platter. One must work hard to get to where one wants. To examine my own personal experiences, I am here at QCC due to my own failures. A long string of failures on my part has lead me to my current destination. I always claim excuses in front of others, and sometimes to myself, such as my manic depression. However I know deep down inside, that it is nothing more then an excuse. This is not fate, or destiny, or circumstances. So what that there is something hindering me. If I had enough willpower, I could and can overcome anything that stands before me. This maybe a harsh and extreme. It is hard on oneself to accept that it is one’s own failures. Some people cannot handle the anguish realization. However I rather I live in such knowledge then pass through life with excuses. Determinism and compatibilism makes it too easy for one to give up. To lie and wallow in excuses. These philosophies are the ones promoting pessimism. They claim it is the will of the Gods, what is meant to be. There is nothing I can do to challenge or change my position in life. That I was a failure, and doomed to die as a failure.

            There claim that we are all slaves to their the Gods or to human nature. Being slave to the fate of the gods depends too much on the existence of God. This is not a rational enough argument to consider. There is not enough satisfactory evidence to my taste, that convinces me that God exists, or God in the Western Christian-Islamic-Judaic view. Therefore one can throw out determinism out the window from this. Compatibilist claim we are slaves to human nature. We were conditioned and programmed into a certain behavior. As I have stated above. It is a matter of personal will power. We can all rise above anything, any kind of situation. It is up to us if we dare to pay the price of such. The example below is a good illustration: 

The compatibilist's question: What characteristic is common to those acts in the left-hand column, but absent from those acts in the right-hand column? The causes of the actions in the left-hand column are psychological processes that are under the agent's control. Hence, the compatibilist proposes a different definition of freedom.[9]”

The un-free acts can all be free acts. The man fasting in the desert because there was no food. Is still a free act. There is nothing stopping the man from leaving the desert. If he is lost, then well it is his own fault for not bring enough food, or for being stuck in the desert. If his plane crashed there? Then his own fault for not packing up a backpack full of foodsupplies and such in case if his plane crashed. Is it realistically reasonable to do so? Probably not. However there is nothing stopping one from doing such. Stealing because one’s employer threatened to beat one and Signing because the police beat one are similar situations. There is nothing stopping one from leaving employment, finding another job, taking the beating or reporting such. There is nothing stopping one from just taking the beating and not signing. Sure it is difficult, and pain is a good persuasion to give in. There are always choices. If one choices not to sign, or not to steal. The police and your employer cannot force you to. They can beat you to death. But still in the end, you did not steal or sign the confession. One may claim that’s hardly freedom. However when one has the ability to make choices it is freedom. It may not be desirable results, but no where does it say, that all actions have a desirable result? The same can be said about forcible being removed. One can stay and be killed, before leaving. Or one can roam around in the countryside. There are many different things and choices one may take. It is all up to the individual if they are willing to face the consequences.