Libertarianism is a position that asserts that human beings have the luxury of free will in the universe. This theory states that free will is reflected in the fact that people can choose to do something or do otherwise if the antecedent conditions are the same. It must be noted that the libertarian theory does not assert that all actions are free but rather a substantial amount are of that nature.

According to the libertarian view human actions are preceded by deliberations and thoughts concerning whether or not to undertake such actions. In this case it is affirmed that there are two or more alternatives that must be weighed by the individual to make a choice that is deemed worthy. This view is called the argument from deliberation, which was articulated by Corliss Lamount when he states: 

There is the unmistakable intuition of virtually every human being that he is free to make the choices he does and that deliberations leading to those choices are also free flowing. The normal man feels too, after he has made a decision, that he could have differently. That is why regret and remorse for a past choice can be so disturbing. (Qtd. in Philosophical Traditions 332) 

            In the above citation Mr. Lamont makes a great point that if free will were not a possession of human beings then humans would not have any regrets for their decisions. This is the case because one can only feel regret if one thinks that making another decision would have resulted in a different outcome as it relates to the a particular chosen decision.

            Many criticisms have been put forward to refute the libertarian theory particularly by determinists. The determinist theory states that human actions, states and events in the world are all caused. There exist two branches of the deterministic theory, which are hard determinism and soft determinism. In the case of hard determinism every event that takes place is wholly caused, thereby, rendering individuals unaccountable for their various actions. Soft determinism states that human actions are still subjected to some sort of accountability where it is the case that actions are undertaken voluntarily.

            The determinists attack libertarianism by arguing that free will is purely a feeling, which is illusionary in nature. The argument states that human feelings of free will when making decisions are purely imaginary and not necessarily the case. Ledger Wood made a good deterministic explanation of this argument when he writes:                       

After conflict and uncertainty, the pent-up energies of the mind-or rather of the underlying neural processes-are released and this process is accompanied by an inner sense of power. Thus the feeling of freedom or voluntary control over one’s actions is a mere subjective illusion which cannot be considered evidence for psychological indeterminacy. (Qtd. in Philosophical Traditions 332)           

            In the above quote Mr. Wood is putting forth the position that human actions are the result of beliefs and certain desires. In this case humans do not have the luxury of choosing what desires and beliefs they subscribe to. Human beliefs and desires are said to spring from external and internal dispositions, which are not chosen by persons.

            At this point I am disturbed by the before mentioned argument that humans do not choose their desires. If this is the case then humans are not responsible for their love of sex, ice cream, video games and other things, which stimulate the senses. Desires are automatically chosen allowing the strongest desire to be selected as a rule.  This is to suggest that the libertarian position is fallacious because human actions are not dictated by human deliberations but rather the strongest desires are chosen as a matter of course.

            The libertarian view maintains that the deterministic explanation of causation is limited in scope because there are many factors, which may be brought together in order to make choices. Libertarians assert in response to the determinist that human actions may or may not be instigated by a person and if they are, the instigator may not change in any meaningful way. Richard Taylor advances this response to the deterministic argument by stating:

The only conception of action that accords with the data [of human experience] is one according to which men are sometimes, but of course not always, self-determining beings. That is, beings which are sometimes the cause of their own behavior. In the case of an action that is free, it must be such that it is caused by the agent who performs it, but such that no antecedent conditions were sufficient for his performing just that action.  In the case of an action that is both free and rational, it must be such that the agent who performed it did so for some reason, but this reason cannot have been the cause of it. (Qtd. in Philosophical Traditions 334) 

            It is evident that most people believe that everything has and must have a cause. The determinist and others have proposed that all human actions and events are caused without considering that we have only gotten a preview of all the processes in the universe.

            I am partly subscribed to the libertarian theory because it rightly enables us to make people accountable for their actions. Although young children make choices and they are not punished, as an adult would be, it is acknowledged that the more one learns one gets a greater understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. The deterministic theory would render human actions excusable because humans cannot be the authors of those those actions. If the deterministic theory was widely held as true then words such as guilty, blame and recompense must be abolished from human languages. It would be the case the no court could find anyone guilty of premeditated crimes and the like. Mr. Stace highlights the predicament that determinism would place mankind in when he states:

It is observed that those learned professors of philosophy or psychology who deny the existence of free will do so only in their professional moments and in their studies and lecture rooms. For when it comes to doing anything practical, even most trivial kind, they invariably behave as if they and others were free. They inquire from you at dinner whether you will choose this dish or that dish. They will ask a child why he told a lie, and will punish him for not having chosen the way of truthfulness. All of which is inconsistent with a disbelief in free will. This should cause us to suspect that the problem is not a real one; and this, I believe, is the case. The dispute is merely verbal, and is due to nothing but confusion about the meanings of words. It is what is now fashionably called a semantic problem.    

            The arguments that I have put forth so far don’t deal so much with the truth of the deterministic argument but with the difficulties associated with it. Most people do hold people accountable for their misdeeds and when a determinist is wronged they don’t retort, “Oh, he had no other choice but to rob me.”  The determinist will seek justice in this case against someone who has wronged them. It is hard to accept someone’s assertion when they are not inclined to act in accordance with that assertion.

            The main point is that there are hardly any coherent arguments that would demolish the argument of libertarianism. This being the case, many have attempted to show the fallibility of the libertarian theory. Some persons have put forward the argument that libertarianism is enticing but it essentially leaves the notion of agent causality unexplained. In this case libertarianism does not give adequate explanations for actions, rendering one to think of them in the realm of miracles.

            It cannot be said with all certainty that all events are caused and the libertarian theory asserts that certain events are not caused. The Deterministic theory if practiced widely will surely bring all human societies to chaos, for it will render civil laws useless because people are not considered to act freely and cannot be held accountable for their actions. Why should all human sense of justice be subverted when there is not a definitive proof that all events are caused? The compatibility theory is just a watered down variation of the deterministic theory with elements of libertarianism. This theory asserts that free will can be chosen or suppressed in an individual when making choices, if the brain’s neural activity prevents the option of freely choosing.  It leaves us to ask when one can know when there is an incidence of free will as opposed to coercive internal and external forces influencing the making of a particular decision.  Libertarianism gives us a much clearer view of free will as it relates to humans and in its practical application offers the greatest benefits to humans.