Determinism vs. Free Will

Ian Martin

AP English 12

Ms. Berry

10 Sept. 2010

M a r t i n | 1

Ian Martin

AP English 12

Ms. Berry

10 Sept. 2010

Determinism vs. Free Will

Among the philosophy adopted by intellectuals of today’s society are the opposing

ideals of determinism and free will. Determinism is the theory that all of man’s choices,

activities, and behaviors are subconsciously regulated by causality and the definite

psychological laws of the physical universe, therefore making them predetermined. Free will, in

opposition, is the belief that if an individual is confronted with two or more alternatives

concerning a particular action or choice, the individual can freely decide between them without

psychosomatic interference. Supposition has developed concerning both ethical theories since

the philosophy of ancient Greece, but nothing has provided concrete, irrefutable evidence

supporting the hypotheses. Through the theory of philosophers like Aristotle and Baruch

Spinoza, the question of compatibility is raised? Can an individual follow the definite laws of

scientific behavior whilst maintaining free choice in his actions, or do the two indisputably

contradict either other without relief?

In the early years of the eighteenth century, dubbed the Age of Reason, Thomas Reid

considered the complexity of determinism. To Reid, man had no psychological freedom and

followed the predetermined laws of cause and effect (called Causality). Therefore, the sentence

“I could have done otherwise” could never exist in Reid’s deterministic universe. He believed

that every action, event, and choice ever made in reality was the only possible outcome that

M a r t i n | 2

could happen under a set of given circumstances. In short, the category of the possible and the

category of the actual are no different. In his mind, choice was an illusion. Reid’s theory was

that if an individual knew all aspects of present along with all the causal principles of

determinism, one could calculate all aspects of the past and future with adamant accuracy, for

they both were set in stone. To Reid, determinism was more than predictability of humanity.

Reid believed the world existed in a deterministic universe, calling it a “machine within a

greater machine.” He was what we call a “hard determinist”, for he strongly believed in these

principles and completely rejected the idea of free will. However, theories of determinism and

causality directly contradict the day to day experience of making choices and having options,

but what if this daily familiarity is simply fantasy?

The theory of determinism has been disputed since the Greek philosophy of Epicurus,

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. A more commonly known philosopher to support theories of free

will is Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt is still alive, teaching philosophy at Princeton University.

Frankfurt’s viewpoint of the idea of free will is rather ground-breaking. He introduces the

phenomenon of first-order desires and second-order desires; an adaptation of free will vs. free

action. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains Frankfurt’s theory quite well. In

Section 2 of the Free Will article, the following can be found: “I may want to eat a candy bar (1st

Order Desire), but I also may want not to want this (2nd Order Desire) because the connection

between habitual candy eating and poor health.” To Frankfurt, if an individual is confronted

with a situation like this and chooses a second-order desire, they would not be free, for their

judgment would be dictated by a desire they did not personally identify with. Identically, when

actions are reluctantly acted, they are not considered free either. He outlines the difference

M a r t i n | 3

between what we want to do and what we actually end up doing; a new perspective of Free

Will philosophy. Frankfurt has written two books relating to the depth of this idea: Freedom of

the Will and the Concept of a Person and Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.

The profundity of both concepts is significant and can be justly argued to no end.

However, neither can be proved or disproved. Through my research I have comprehended the

possibility of free will existing. Determinism provides a great deal of strong, valid points, but I

can’t come to believe that every action in which I partake is preset in stone. Therefore I agree

with the theories of Free Will philosophy because, in my opinion, they provide more concrete

evidence supporting validity.

Using an example similar to the supporting example used in Frankfurt’s free will vs. free

action theory, I recall experiences at Coffee Emporium. As an avid customer, I have a favorite

drink: White Chocolate Brain-Freeze. It’s an all white blended beverage with whipped cream

and a caramel drizzle, almost like a Frappuccino, but much better. Coffee Emporium offers two

different sizes for blended beverages, large and medium. Ritually, I order a medium, simply

because it’s cheaper, has fewer calories, and more than satisfies me. On one occasion, I

ordered the larger size, when I could have ordered my usual. This is an example of exercising

free will and free action. I had free will to choose either size, but utilized free action in choosing

the unfamiliar alternative. Many consumers have experienced situations like this one, which

platforms how free will is witnessed in the economy.

The ideals of determinism vs. free will are often associated with politics as well,

correlating to conservative vs. liberal principles. Philosophers often believe many determinism

advocates are members of the conservative party which indirectly relates to the Republican

M a r t i n | 4

Party, and vice versa with liberalism and the Democratic Party. This notion is reasonable

because liberalism is often classified as freethinking, hence the free. From a social perspective,

free will was obliquely prominent in Europe during the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. In

America, I consider the Civil Rights Movement. Through the riots, boycotts, marches, and

countless gatherings, African Americans participated because of a longing for justice and

equality (1st Order Desire). This desire African Americans identified with, and therefore

motivated their actions. The governmental oppression provided by the Caucasian authority

intimidated and spawned hesitation in many, and the desire to not be legally punished would

develop (2nd Order Desire). Regardless, many continued supporting and participating in the

movement, clearly showcasing free will AND free action; correspondingly with the numerous

movements for national independence across the globe.

Free will ethics are also continually demonstrated in literature alike, from child books to

advance novels. Reflect on Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham. Sam, one of the main characters,

repeatedly encourages another unnamed character to taste a physically green breakfast and he

repeatedly refuses to try it. This unnamed character, of course, has the choice to taste the

green food, but he chooses not to. This choice however is a second-order desire. The idea of

green food is simply absurd to him, therefore his judgment is clouded by a precedential societal

standard. Inevitably, after vigorous persuasion, he tastes the green eggs and ham, and ends up

admiring the meal. Seuss demonstrates an unavoidability of first-order desires. In this case, this

characters first-order desire, like many, was to eat. This is a timeless classic that indirectly

exhibits the density of free will.

M a r t i n | 5

Free will has been confirmed throughout society, economics, politics, and literature in

many instances. Humanity generally supports the philosophy subconsciously. Every day we

make choices, some with alternatives equally effective. Although it hasn’t been proven, I

believe this day to day experience cannot be an illusion, it isn’t fantasy, and it exists. I could

have chosen not to turn in this essay, but I did because I am proud of my work and because its

effects my grade. As time moves forward, I do believe society will migrate to a more scientific

world view supporting determinism, simply because of new communal standards and advances

in technology and mathematics. Until the scientific equipment is developed to attest to the

validity of determinism, I concretely support the philosophy of free will.

M a r t i n | 6

Works Cited

Settanni, Harry. What is Freedom of Choice? Maryland: University Press of America, 1992. Print.

Campbell, Joseph Keim, and Michael O’Rourke. Freedom and Determinism. Massachusetts: The

MIT Press, 2004. Print.

Kane, Robert, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Print.