Definition of Philosophy

The Question of Free Will

by

 

Man is especially proud of having free will – that which gives him the ability to make conscious choices without being limited by any form of constraint.  Whether this is true or not has been the subject of various contentions between philosophers.  Some view free will as an illusion created by man to attribute to himself a certain control over his destiny when in fact all his actions are but natural results of the process of cause and effect.

Going into the inner intricacies of personal philosophies about free will necessitate understanding about what freedom means to each mind.  When given a choice between good and bad, a person can choose the good and claim that he chooses to do so.  Others can contradict that the choice for the good is only a predisposition for something that has been decided in the past, meaning that the choice was made because it was pre-determined that it was the good thing to do.  This is then countered by the proponents of free will as a clear exercise of such ability since the person can always choose the bad and yet he doesn’t.  And so the circle of reasoning continues with each having a point against each other and yet being unable to fully convince people of their absoluteness.

Many religions point to a greater power who determines the destiny of each individual.  Science attributes genetics and biochemistry for predispositions.  Free will enters the picture when a decision is made in spite of such determinants and predispositions specially where there are no physical restraints that can affect the outcome.

There is a question of free will when in spite of absence of any constraint; a decision is arrived at due to necessity.  How much freedom does that represent when there is no other recourse aside from the chosen one?  Men bereft of the idea that they have free will turn out more fatalistic in nature being resigned to whatever life has in store for them.

Other news

Errors on ‘comfort women’ issue in US textbook must be corrected

 

Blame, Praise, and Free Will

by

blameBlame is described in Wikipedia as “the act of censuring, holding responsible, making negative statements about an individual or group that their action or actions are socially or morally irresponsible.” Praise, on the other hand, is said to be “the act of making positive statements about a person, object or idea, either in public or privately. Praise is typically, but not exclusively, earned relative to achievement and accomplishment.”

They may be opposites in that one is negative and the other positive but they share a common thread, which is that assigning blame or giving praise to someone both means assigning responsibility to that person. Because of this the very tricky issue of “free will” has to come into play, after all how can anyone be held responsible for anything without free will. And so the classic debate that is still as ever goes on.

If you are interested in delving more into the free will, blame, and praise issue a must read would be Garrath Williams’ article “Praise and Blame”. There he “contrasts three influential philosophical accounts of our everyday practices of praise and blame, in terms of how they might be justified” including the Kantian approach (where the subject of free will is discussed), the utilitarian approach (discusses praise and blame in relation to their usefulness in terms of social benefits), and the Aristotelian approach (focuses on mutual accountability and moral education).