Galen Strawson Considers Freedom of Will to Be Profanation - Essay Example

Galen Strawson: Free Will Part I: Introduction. Galen Strawson argues that humans lack the capacity to be completely responsible for their actions despite the supposed presence of free will. The primary premise for his argument is that, since humans are not fully responsible for the way they are, they cannot be fully responsible for their actions (Strawson, 1995). Strawson’s argument stipulates that the numerous contributory factors that help shape our personalities and realities detract from our culpability and make the notion of free will a myth (Strawson, 1995). I disagree with Strawson’s position and posit that humans can and should be held responsible for their actions because, as Strawson points out, even if the situation is such that you have a gun to your head, you still have a choice (Strawson, 1995). The unpleasantness of the choice does not nullify the presence of the choice or the fact that we always have the option to choose either the pleasant or more tolerable route over the unpleasant option and vice versa. Part II: Presenting the argument According to Strawson’s analysis, humans lack the capacity to make free choices. The influences of society, parents, friends, teachers, and all of the contributory factors that shape each of us into the unique individuals we are countermand our ability to freely make decisions. Since we do not control who we are and who we are determines the decisions we make, logic dictates that we are not engaging in free will because we did not have the power to shape who we are (Strawson, 1995). Additionally, Strawson states that, even if a person changes who they are, this does not mean they have free will because heredity and experience have already affected you in ways that you can never change (Strawson, 1995). The way a person is ultimately has a significant effect on how they are able to change and what attributes they are able to change, which causes the redundancy in the whole concept of change to facilitate free will. Part III: Evaluating the Argument / Presenting Critique. Strawson begins by presenting the gamut of views concerning free will from the perspective of the Compatibilists and the Libertarian and No-Freedom Incompatibilists. The philosophical view of the Compatibilist is that humans have free will and are morally responsible for their actions (Strawson, 1995). According to Strawson, Compatibilists base their analysis of the condition of free will on the fact that it is compatible with the concept of determinism, which states that each action creates a pattern that makes subsequent actions or reactions unavoidable (Strawson, 1995). This theory deems the determining factors that affect personality irrelevant and maintain that free will is absolute, despite the inclusion of determinism. However, the presence of determinism in the Compatibilist view of free will actually nullifies the view point because how can you freely choose an option that has been predetermined? The Libertarian perspective, according to Strawson, is in agreement with the Compatibilist argument that humans do have free will, but these views diverge on the viewpoint of determinism (Strawson, 1995). Libertarians believe that determinism is not attuned to the Compatibilist theories and that indeterminism, which is the falsity of determinism, is the correct mode of Compatibilist beliefs, although they have not yet proven how indeterminism qualifies their theories (Strawson, 1995). The Pessimistic perspective differs significantly from the Compatibilist theory in that Pessimistic theories that subscribe to the notion of humanity’s free will are erroneous. This aspect of Incompatibility theory posits that the free will necessary to claim moral responsibility is not a provable concept, although they do concede that it is possible for humans to achieve this end (Strawson, 1995). Strawson’s position that the shaping of our selves denies us free will is relevant theoretically, but not in actuality (Strawson, 1995). Each day, we are all faced with choices, which we freely make and suffer the consequences as they arise, be it goo or bad consequences. If we do not maintain gainful employment, we will not be able to maintain our living status, yet millions of people willingly refrain from getting jobs. These same individuals may later freely decide it is in their best interest to break this pattern of behaviors and learn a skill or trade that leads to a career and this freedom of choice is not the result of obscured thinking but clear logical thinking processes. Although there may be nothing new under the sun, we are still able to reason and make decisions according to our will and desire to act or not to act and, although the way we are helps us decide what to do, we also decide whether we remain the way we are. Part IV. Objection / Response: In objection to Strawson’s argument, I presented the counterargument that an undesirable choice does not mean there is no choice and that humans always have more than one option to freely choose from in any given situation (Strawson, 1995). However, Strawson’s argument that every choice we make is a reflection of the uncontrollable influences that have shaped us presents the reality of choices in another light. If a person’s life has conditioned them to be selfish, presenting options that necessitate a selfless act is not really presenting them with viable options because their selfish nature has pre-determined that they will only choose the self-serving options, not the self-less option. Predictability in human behaviors arises from a marked lack of free will in that, aside from compulsory actions, humans are creatures of habit and routine and seldom look for options that allow new actions or alternatives to present themselves. Humans believe they have free will, which leads them to the illusion that they have choices. If someone gives the choice “do it or die”, human nature will force the “do” action, not the “die”, unless the individual is compulsory or suicidal, thus eliminating the fallacy of choice from the picture. Part V: Conclusion. The argument of whether humans actually possess free will or if every move we make is an old debate with numerous views. Strawson presents the most relevant sides, but remains firm in his estimation that humanity’s free will is an illusion created through a warped belief in their power of self, which we actually have no control over either. We take immense pride in who we are, yet this sense of self was not constructed by ourselves and this is the seat of our inability to exercise free will. The numerous knowledge and experiences that have shaped us as individuals can never be undone and so any changes we make to who we are will still incorporate these experiences and the basis of our knowledge, so how much of ourselves do we actually change and are we really even capable of changing? Although Strawson makes numerous points supporting his disbelief in the concept of free will, I stand equally strong in my estimation that it does exist. The numerous decisions we make each day, small and large, illustrate and reinforce the human right to freely choose his/her path. We each decide the things that take us through our journey in life and, while some choices are obligatory, others are completely up to us. We decide whether we allow the environmental influences, other than the unavoidable genetics, to dictate whom we become and modern technology will soon allow us to change our genes if we so choose. We can already change our looks and these are all choices we make freely. Reference Strawson , G. (1995). Luck Swallows Everything. Oxford University. Retrieved July 23, 2011 from http://www.naturalism.org/strawson.htm Read More