Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person, Essay Example

Freedom of will is objective—there is no science, hypothesis to prove, factual evidence to support its existence. Determinism is contingent upon a myriad of variables and its subjectivity creates no end of dialogue in philosophy. The following paper will examine the definition of freedom of will and determinism as determined by the following philosophers: Libet, Frankfurt, and D’Holbach with a conclusion that states my own philosophy on determinism and freedom of will. I will argue that the person does have free will in choosing to not accept the essay. Choice isn’t a series of synapses firing but a moral reasoning tool used through a process of frame of reference and cause and effect implications.

Benjamin Libet believes that determinism is true. Libet is not a compatiblist. Libet believes in determinism as he states, “My conclusion about free will, one genuinely free in the nondetermined sense, is then that its existence is at least as good, if not a better, scientific option than is its denial by determinist theory” (Libet 9). Libet goes on to explain that he does not believe actions are contingent upon “known physical laws” (9) but that we are limited in our use of choice. Libet argues that the body makes a decision (neuropathways), and that the hesitation between thinking and acting is the body responding to that decision and does not actually represent freedom of choice. Libet noted that there is a gap in of 150 ms when a person “decides” to do something on a conscious level and when the action is carried out. It is in this gap that Libet decided there may be a “free will” factor in the form of a veto. This veto is the participant consciously decided to make a choice to move and this lack of movement is the conscious will manifested. The question Libet asks is whether or not this veto is formed from a preconscious or unconscious state through the same processes as determinism.

Libet’s experiment shows that first a person responds with an unconscious desire to flex their finger, and then a conscious awareness to flex their finger, thus promoting the idea that there is no free will. With the “veto” power however, Libet leaves some wiggle room to allow for free will. Libet would say that declining the offer to take someone else’s paper and us it as your own was a pre-determined reaction to a situation and there was no room for choice in the “decision”. In Libet’s determinism the scenario would allow for the functions of the brain to take in the information of taking the paper to save time, but risking being caught. The brain would then process both outcomes, of the consequence of being caught and then the consequence of turning in late papers because there are also many other papers due at the same time, then after weighing the facts, come to a decision based on these facts. Since determinism is true for Libet, there is no free will involved in this neuropathway transmission. Decisions are based off of an informed calculation instead of anything the person desires or wills. The choice to take the paper may also be based off of the veto process in which the participant choices to accept the paper but then, through a conscious process not to, vetoes the idea instead. The veto concept allies with free will as opposed to the action to take the essay allying with nueropathway transmission that has nothing to do with free will or choice.

Harry G. Frankfurt holds the belief that humans, as a species, act freely. That is, once a person determines, or sets to their mind to achieving a goal, then they utilize their faculties and go and achieve the goal, whether physical, or metaphysical. Frankfurt is however a compatibilist, which marries these opposing ideas into a mutually inclusive philosophy, a “soft” determinism. That is, determinism and free will can be simultaneously true. Since humans have second tier goals (think of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), “Besides wanting or choosing or being moved to do this or that, men may also want to have …certain desires and motives. They are capable of wanting to be different, in their preferences and purposes, from what they are…No animal other than man, however, appears to have the capacity for reflective self-evaluation that is manifested in the formation of second-order choices” (Frankfurt 7). Frankfurt states three different rules: that humans act freely, that human actions are determined, and that if human actions are determined then humans never act freely. Frankfurt argued that the first second were true but that the third one (if human actions are determined then humans never act freely) is not true. In order for free will to be true, the third rule must be attained. Frankfurt would argue that declining taking someone else’s work as using it as your own is an example of freedom of will. Since decisions are made through a “reflective self-evaluation” it can be said that a person may choice to take another’s essay or to not take another’s essay based off of that person’s desire to see themselves in a certain way (reflective) be it either moral or immoral according to their personal make-up and desires. It is desire that is key for these “second-order choices” that Frankfurt put so much stock in. These choices allow for goals to be obtained through a thinking and calculating brain, taking in all of the pros and cons of a situation and then choosing what is the best course of actions according to a moral code. A final decision in this essay scenario then is based on an internal argument with the “self” wherein the “self” stands for free will.

D’Holbach was a hard determinist. As such, D’Holbach believed that everything in the universe, down to the atoms, was composed of matter: there was nothing unaccounted for. Since the entire universe is made up of the same components, it then follows that the universe and the various elements that make up that universe, adhere to the same physical laws. Since laws are the cohesive tape to how things in the universe are allowed to react, there is no room for an unaccountable action such as determined by free will. Nothing can determine the action of things except for universal/physical laws. D’Holbach supports this by stating that since conception humans are born without the choice to be born –it is a natural that occurs in the universe. As such, the definition of a will is merely an extension of the physical brain, and the brain, as part of the physical world controlled by physical laws, cannot be subjected to free will the brain’s existence is contingent upon universal laws. D’Holbach says that thinking does not define free will, “In all this he always acts according to necessary laws, from which he has no means of emancipating himself” (D’Holbach). D’Holbach states that freedom of will hinges upon the idea that a person acts without motive or goals, and this is an impossible feat: there is always cause to justify actions. Thus, determinism is the factor in the “decision” in not using another person’s paper as your own.  Since a person is ruled by these physical laws, when the person in the scenario is approached by another student offering a “no strings attached” essay since the brain making the decision is ruled by these universal laws, there is no real choice in the matter. A decision is made through something that is pre-determined in their chemical or neurological make up. The person’s actions are justified through physical laws instead of moral choices.

I believe that people have a choice in deciding how they act and that that choice is found in Libet’s veto. If there is a 150 ms before a decision is acquired through synapses and impulses in the brain, then that blank spot, between consciously accepting a movement and physically performing, holds the key to free will. The power to veto an impulse defines free will. Also, if a person determines unconsciously to turn in the paper or not as their own, and then in the moment of decision they veto this action, from where does the veto spring? From what independent neuro-relapses does this ultimate “no” come from? There are grey areas in the study and application of philosophy, and applying a science (as Libet did) to the study may help in a quantifiable capacity. I argue free will because in the conscious moment of coming to a decision and acting upon that decision there is also a millisecond in response time reserved to “veto” determined action, then that veto represents free will.

Works Cited

D’Holbach, Baron. “A System of Nature.” Project Gutenberg. I (XI). Print.

Frankfurt, Harry G. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Journal of  Philosophy. 68 (1). 5-20. Print.

Libet, Benjamin. “Freedom of Will.” 1-9. Print.