The fact that I ‘am in the Baruch library and struggling to start my philosophy paper is determinism. All that a being propelled by a mind does is the inescapable outcome of what came previously, along with everything that we do. My professor had to give me the assignment for me to struggle to start my philosophy paper. Furthermore, I had to register for philosophy 1500 before taking philosophy 1500. On top of that I had to apply to Baruch College for me to be accepted by Baruch and register for philosophy 1500 so that I could struggle to start my philosophy paper.
Determinism does not grant options and all circumstances are caused by prior events absent of will. Individuals and their forms of operating coincide with the physical world and are constrained by its physical laws. An individual could have never performed an action except for what they initially had done. Therefore, they are never truly free in the characterization of determinism.
Laplace’s writes that repercussions of the past in the universe can determine our current and ongoing footing in the universe. In like matter if an agent can recognize the precise moment that all particles the natural world is made of, then the agent can construct an equation for determining by what means the mobility of all particles of the natural world. Therefore, such an equation could can determine with certainty the outcome of future events and longer be a mystery.
The passage Laplace writes relates to concept of determinism by adding to the conclusion that a person’s decisions are generated absent to a person’s desire. If the equation can determine how future events will transpire, then that means that there is no way of avoiding how future events will take place. By the pure definition of determinism, we can comprehend that the agent will in fact act in a certain way as opposed to another way regardless the way he may feel.
Determinism directly dispels the notion that humans are free to act without constraint. Determinism emphasizes the idea that the future is fixed and there are no other possible outcomes that can occur. In retrospect free will embodies the idea that individuals have the capacity to alter their future with the choices they desire. Free will is the belief that humans have the liberty to decide how certain outcomes take place. As a result determinism and free will are the contradictory embodiments of each other.
Nagel discusses that people are not at fault of their actions because if determinism is in fact true. The reason being that the option of choosing cake or a peach was already destined to happen in advance before you even had the thought of choosing. On the idea that if the choice was something that had not been set by people’s hereditary constitution and circumstances. Moreover, if an action occurs without determinism in that cause how it our fault if it is something happening arbitrarily without cause.
Determinism gives rise to the conclusion that our actions are not our obligations. In the example of the option of choosing cake over the peach. We are not at fault of our choices because they are certain to happen even before we recognize them. The decision to choose cake over the peach was not the agents responsibility because it elements out of his reach determined beforehand that he would in fact choose the cake.
Separately the absence of determinism makes us responsible for our actions, because the option of choosing between cake and the peach was an open possibility up until the moment the agent chooses the cake. It just happened to be in the agent’s best interest that at that particular moment the agent valued the negative effect of having cake over the positive effect of being healthy. Nagel adds to the idea that if we believe this to be true then we our actions are not fixed like the sun that rises every day at a certain time.
I believe we are responsible for our actions regardless if determinism is true or not. If it is destined that an agent commits murder than he must own up to his actions. Under any circumstances if his actions were an inescapable outcome and if his action was based upon his will to do so. It is essential that we bear responsibility for our actions to successfully adopt constitutional laws for people who commit crimes. If it is or is not a person’s inescapable outcome to be the owner of a billion-dollar hedge fund or create the solution for world peace. Then so be it, it was that person’s luck and we as beings propelled by a mind must go with the flow for what is to happen in our lives.
Stace believes that are philosophers defining free will as indeterminism which in his eyes is the wrong definition for free will. Therefore, they cannot apply an appropriate answer conclude of determinism really exists. Stace declares the basis for an act to be considered free is if the act originates from an agent’s internal inclination or desire to do so. He defines unfree acts as caused by forces outside the reach of the agent. For instance, if someone points a gun at your head and you give them your wallet, he defines as an act that is done in fear of your life and therefore not freely done.
I do not agree with the definition Stace presents for acts to be freely done. To me it seems he is using the idea of emotional output to justify why events that happen external to our phycological states may feel free. When we disregard our feeling of being free then we can justify that certain actions external to our physiological states are unperceivable to the human psyche. In this regard we can justify why certain actions are inescapable and bound to happen due to previous events.
The three views that Cahn offers regarding determinism is hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. The hard determinist can follow that both premise 1 and 2 of Darrow’s augment are in fact true and therefore conclude the conclusion to be true. Hard determinist agrees with the idea that no person has free will which correlates with the conclusion that no action is free. The soft determinist takes a different approach in denying premise 1 that assumes an event is free if only if it is within an individual’s power to act freely. A soft determinist agrees with premise 2 and does not deny determinism but believes in the concept of free will by justifying it as the dimensions to operate at one’s own temperament outside even if it is outside the reach of the individual.
libertarianism refuses to accept the idea of determinism. Therefore, they reject premise 2 but accept premise 1. They admit to the improbable belief that some human events occur because of a previous cause. They deny the 2nd premise because they believe some human actions are freely chosen.
I find libertarianism to be the least convincing because it gives the off the sense of feeling that we are free. But Hard determinism to me is the most compelling because of the order of events that have happened in my life seem to be caused by previous events. In this sense gives me a purpose and drives me to believe that I’m destined to achieve my dream one day in the future.