The Illusion of Free Will: an Examination of Human Autonomy

Most human beings fervently believe they possess free will, primarily because they perceive themselves as the architects of their own decisions.

Introduction

This belief is often rooted in the everyday choices they make, such as what to eat, wear, listen to, where to reside, or the kind of car to drive. While it appears that we have a significant degree of autonomy over our lives, the reality is that our freedom is more constrained than we might like to believe. A multitude of factors, ranging from individual to societal influences, shape our behaviors, language, and life choices.

This essay will explore the philosophical debate surrounding free will, focusing on the deterministic perspective and examining whether true autonomy exists or is merely an illusion.

Determinism and the Chain of Causality

Determinism posits that every event or decision is the inevitable result of preceding factors, forming an unbroken chain of causality. Under this view, our choices are not truly autonomous but are instead influenced by pre-existing conditions and natural laws. Our perceived freedom is often overshadowed by unseen or unconscious factors that direct our decision-making processes. As a result, determinists argue that humans lack genuine free will.

The Collins English Dictionary defines free will as "the ability or discretion to choose, free from constraints of natural causality or predestination by fate or divine will." Philosophers have long debated this concept, presenting three primary viewpoints: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinism asserts that free will is an illusion and that humans should not be held accountable for their actions. Libertarianism, or indeterminism, claims that humans possess free will and are responsible for their choices. Compatibilism attempts to reconcile determinism with the notion of freedom.

I align with determinists in their belief that humans lack free will. Determinism asserts that each event is theoretically predictable if one knows all prior conditions and the governing laws. Human actions are considered part of this natural causal chain, rendering them predetermined. This perspective suggests that our lives follow a singular path, dictated by the laws of nature. An external entity, often perceived as divine, may influence our choices, directly or indirectly. For instance, religious beliefs can profoundly shape decision-making, as the fear of divine retribution or the desire for eternal reward compels individuals to make certain moral choices.

Influential Philosophers and Determinism

Prominent determinists have argued that free will is illusory. Pierre-Simon Laplace, a renowned French mathematician, famously stated that present events are connected to previous ones, based on the principle that nothing comes into existence without a cause. Laplace contended that our perceived freedom is merely a result of ignorance regarding the laws that govern us.

Sigmund Freud's psychological theories have also been co-opted by determinists. Although Freud did not explicitly identify as a determinist, his theories suggest that unconscious desires drive actions that individuals believe they have freely chosen. Contemporary philosopher John Hospers argues that the unconscious mind is the master of human fate.

Baron d'Holbach, another determinist philosopher, asserts that none of our actions are free. According to him, all events result from an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. I concur with d'Holbach, believing that human actions are influenced by invisible causes within our brains. While we may not always identify the exact factors leading to our actions, a comprehensive understanding of our beliefs, desires, and temperaments could, in theory, elucidate these causes.

Counterarguments: Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Opponents of determinism, particularly libertarians, argue that humans are autonomous agents capable of making independent choices from multiple options. They contend that determinism's implications are unsettling, as it negates traditional notions of punishment and moral responsibility. If determinism holds true, then praising virtuous individuals or punishing criminals becomes futile, as their actions are predetermined.

Libertarians believe that human actions should not be equated with natural events, even if the natural world is deterministic. They assert that individuals directly experience freedom and have control over their actions, making them morally responsible for their choices. While it may seem that humans have the freedom to choose, no one is entirely free from the laws of nature and preceding events. True responsibility requires control over one's actions or their causes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, determinism asserts that every event is determined by prior causes and natural laws, making it inevitable given those conditions. If we could rewind the universe to a moment before an event, the outcome would remain unchanged. This predetermined course of events suggests that human freedom and personal responsibility are illusory. As such, human beings are not truly free, nor are they personally accountable for their actions. This philosophical inquiry challenges our understanding of autonomy, compelling us to reconsider the extent of our free will and its implications on morality and responsibility. The debate over free will remains a profound and complex philosophical issue, inviting further exploration and reflection.

Did you like this example?

285

12