Aziz Alhakbani Professor Cuddy Philosophy Belief Pap

Aziz Alhakbani1242017professor Cuddyphilosophy 103belief Paper 2fr

Aziz Alhakbani1242017professor Cuddyphilosophy 103belief Paper 2fr Aziz Alhakbani 12/4/2017 professor. cuddy philosophy 103 belief paper #2 Free Will vs Determinism Introduction Free will and determinism is something that philosophers, psychologists and scientists have been struggling with for years now. This paper will be an argumentative essay on whether free will or determination which one is more prominent. This will be done through analysis of two articles. One of the articles is “Free Will Vs Free Choice” by Gerhard Adam and the second article is “Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility” by Vir Narain. Part I Gerhard Adam in his article “Free will vs Free choice” tries to bring a clear understanding of the concept of free will which he believes have been confused by free choice. According to him, free will is an illusion and does not exist. He argues that there are choices that always exist in each and every step and action that negates the aspect of free will. The author uses the example of computer programming to explain how free choice is what exists rather than free will. In the example, he shows how one step provides choices for the next step that have to be selected for one to proceed to another step (Adam, 2013). This according to him brings about free choice and not free will. Gerhard Adam believes that free will is all about the person making the choice being given absolute freedom of choosing and not being given directions and hints of what the next step should be. He however, does not bring the concept of determinism, however, what he drives at is that determinism happens in so many ways, some of which look like free will but in essence is some form of determinism. According to Adam, the choices act as decision points that make him believe that the things that human beings engage in are all but predetermined in a certain way. Vir Narain in his article starts by giving a detailed definition of determinism and free will and how they intertwine with moral responsibility. Narain believes that determinism provides that the universe is governed by the strictest natural laws, events arise naturally and inevitably from the causative factors that follow these laws (Narain, 2009). According to him, the determinist position has been challenged by the discovery of the indeterminacy at the level of subatomic particles. Narain is of the opinion that free will is more prominent in the world looking at the various aspects of living. Determinism, according to him, is crafted by people who feel their freedom to choose has been curtailed. However, for the larger majority, free will is what has been existing and mostly seen in how people arrive at choices. He uses the example of the various freedoms and rights that people have been given to prove how free will is the order of the day. Determinism according to him is a concept that works perfect in places where there is superiority in leadership, where people have to obey orders such as in military scenarios. Part II From the arguments of the two authors about “free will and determination,” there are various points of disagreements that can be highlighted. One is that Gerhard Adam believes that free will is an illusion as free choice, which is basically an element of determinism, is more prominent. On the other side, Vir Narain believes that free will is the one that is applicable as people are given made options, which cannot be argued to be part of determinism. The arguments by both authors have sense in them and also have elements of inductive and deductive reasoning in them. For example, there are general conclusions that are made about these two authors. These generalizations can be said to have been influenced by the various biases that they exhibit towards one another. This is because objective reasoning, free from bias, can make arguments that there are instances when free will comes into play while there are instances where determinism comes into play. This is because both authors have evidence of instances where their position comes into play. What they avoid to do is to analyze the two sides to see instances where their arguments of the other side also come into play. Biases are the main reason for such instances where people such as authors and analysts decide to just take one side of the story or argument and make a point as if that is the only true position (Mathewson, 2010). Bias, as have been identified by philosophers, is a major hindrance to correct reasoning and judgment. In the disagreements that are exhibited by the two authors, many factors of bias can be said to have affected such reasoning. One is cognitive biases, emotions, and inaccurate memories. It is therefore important that any person reading the article of the two authors should be very careful, only to take those points that are facts, and leave the emotions and opinions as such are clogged by biases. Gerhard Adam can make counterarguments about the opinion of Vir Narain. Adam believes that determinism rules the decisions and choices that people make in the world regarding various issues. Adam can therefore tell Narain that the physical world operates according to rigid and predictable laws, and since humans are physical in nature, our choices are thus constrained by those laws. Conscious human minds are the product of physical brain activity, and nothing more. This position is at the heart of the following argument for determination from materialism. In making an inductive reasoning, it can be said that human choices are exclusively a function of brain activity, and brain activity is constrained by rigid natural laws; therefore, human choices are constrained by the natural laws. Another counterargument Adam can give to Narain in regard to free will and determinism is that scientists from many disciplines propose prediction indicators of human behavior, indicating that there is a genetic basis for sexual orientation, violent behavior, shyness, and even political preferences. This means that social influences impact the choices that people make regarding careers, hobbies, food preferences, and religious affiliations. Vir Narain can also make a counterargument against Gerhard Adam by saying that advocates of free will see our final decision-making process differently. The various motives pile up within the mind, some stronger than others. However, can all that people thoughtfully pick through the competing motives and freely select one, even a weaker one? This shows that people have the ability to break the chain of motives and act freely. Another counterargument Narain can give Adam is that throughout the day, thousands of small decisions are made—what to eat, wear, read, talk to—yet people typically feel in control of what they do, indicating the presence of free will versus determinism. PART III Both authors provided important information on free will and determinism; nevertheless, mistakes in reasoning, or fallacies, can be identified in both articles. People are prone to these mistakes, and minimizing them is essential. For example, Narain states that the freedom experienced today indicates free will is more prominent; however, this employs the false cause fallacy, as the existence of freedoms granted by government does not directly equate to free will. In conclusion, both arguments contain truths but are also partial, sometimes presenting only one side of the story, leading to fallacies often acknowledged in philosophical discourse. It is vital to recognize that both determinism and free will influence human decision-making, each applying in specific contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction: The debate between free will and determinism has persisted across centuries among philosophers, scientists, and psychologists. It examines whether human actions are genuinely autonomous or determined by prior causes. This paper explores these concepts through analysis of two scholarly articles: Gerhard Adam’s “Free Will Vs Free Choice” and Vir Narain’s “Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility.” Both articles offer contrasting perspectives, with Adam asserting that free will is an illusion rooted in deterministic processes, while Narain emphasizes the prominence of free will amid environmental and societal influences.

Gerhard Adam’s Argument: Adam contends that free will is merely an illusion, and what we interpret as free will is actually free choice, which he equates with a deterministic network of decision points. He uses the analogy of computer programming to demonstrate how each decision acts as a programmable step, with choices leading inevitably to subsequent decisions. According to Adam, human behavior is constrained by these deterministic chains, which appear as free will but are ultimately preconditioned. He posits that the perception of absolute freedom is an illusion unless the decision-making process is entirely uninfluenced by prior factors, which he believes is impossible. His stance aligns with mechanistic views rooted in physicalism, suggesting that human decisions are a product of brain activity governed by natural laws. From this viewpoint, free will is a construct that arises from complex but deterministic neural processes.

Vir Narain’s Perspective: Conversely, Narain grounds his argument in the natural laws governing the universe, emphasizing that determinism dictates that events inevitably follow causative laws. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that recent findings at the subatomic level challenge classical determinism, potentially opening space for free will. Narain advocates that humans exercise free will in their decision-making, citing daily experiences of choice—from mundane selections like clothing to moral judgments—as evidence. He argues that individuals sometimes override automatic motives or favor weaker options, showcasing agency. Furthermore, societal freedoms and rights are manifestations of free will, and in hierarchical settings like military contexts, determinism seems more evident. Ultimately, Narain maintains that free will remains a central human attribute, shaping moral responsibility and personal accountability.

Disagreements and Critical Analysis: The core disagreement hinges on whether human choices are entirely preprogrammed (Adam) or possess genuine agency (Narain). Adam’s deterministic stance relies heavily on physicalism and neuroscience, arguing that mental states are reducible to brain activity constrained by natural laws. He challenges the notion of free will by asserting that scientific advances establish a causal chain from brain to behavior. Conversely, Narain emphasizes subjective experiences and societal observations, asserting that human decision-making involves conscious overriding of motives, demonstrating free will. Both perspectives incorporate logical reasoning—the inductive from empirical data and the deductive from philosophical principles—but are affected by cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and emotional influences.

Potential Fallacies: Both authors exhibit reasoning fallacies. Narain’s assertion that contemporary freedoms point to the prominence of free will employs the false cause fallacy, confusing the mere existence of freedoms with the capacity for autonomous choice. Similarly, Adam’s arguments may oversimplify the complexity of human cognition by equating neural determinism with complete control, neglecting the emergent properties of consciousness and social influences. Recognizing these fallacies highlights the need for nuanced perspectives that factor in contextual and scientific complexities. A balanced view suggests human decision-making involves an interplay of deterministic neural processes and conscious agency, varying with circumstances and individual differences.

Conclusion: The debate on free will and determinism remains unresolved, but it is evident that both concepts influence human behavior in different contexts. Determinism accounts for the natural order and causal chains in the physical universe, while free will emphasizes individual agency and moral responsibility. Recognizing the limitations and biases inherent in philosophical and scientific reasoning can foster more comprehensive understanding. Future research integrating neuroscience, philosophy, and social sciences may further elucidate the nuanced interplay between these forces, advancing our knowledge of human autonomy and accountability.

References

• Adam, G. (2013). Free Will Vs Free Choice. Sage Journal.
• Mathewson, C. (2010). Introduction to Philosophy and Its Concepts. McGraw Hill Education.
• Narain, V. (2009). Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Contemporary Philosophy.