Determinism vs.

Free Will

Ian Martin

AP English 12

Ms. Berry

10 Sept. 2010
 Martin |2

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,

 Martin |3

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 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;

 Martin |4

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 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
 Martin |5

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 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

 Martin |6

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.

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

 Martin |7

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.
 Martin |8

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.