Viktor Frankl famously said, 'Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom
Without free will, human behavior would be deterministic, driven solely by environmental factors and biology, likely leading to resignation and passivity. This absence of choice would erode moral accountability, potentially destabilizing ethical and social systems. Embracing free will fosters empathy, kindness, and empowerment, encouraging individuals to act for justice, equality, and the common good demonstrated by its tangible impact on society
It is interesting you mention moral accountability. A famous case study in philosophical determinism is the trial of child murderers Leopold and Loeb, defended by the attorney Clarence Darrow in 1924 . Essentially Darrow blamed upbringing and other socioeconomic factors in the children's lives that he claimed were directly responsible for their criminal involvement (ie their actions were determined). In doing so he relieved the defendants of responsibility arguing that “punishment is not punishment unless the defender has free will to select his course”. Whilst now not a viable defence, would you agree with this contention? Can we acquit criminals based on determinism?
From a perspective that incorporates elements of both free will and determinism, one could argue that while external factors such as genetics, upbringing, and environment may influence our choices to some extent, individuals still have the capacity to exercise action and make decisions within the constraints of these influences. Our actions may be shaped by our circumstances, but we also have the ability to reflect, deliberate, and consciously choose how to respond to them. In this view, free will and determinism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather interact in a complex and nuanced manner
I believe humanity must have free will, and even if not, we must think we do. If everyone thinks their actions are predetermined, no one will ever be motivated to do anything.
There is a difference between the reality of whether free will exists from the belief that we think it exists in order to make life worth living, worthwhile examining carefully, how humans undertake action and see if they have control over anything. But do appreciate your perspective Vikram.
Viktor Frankl famously said, 'Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom
Without free will, human behavior would be deterministic, driven solely by environmental factors and biology, likely leading to resignation and passivity. This absence of choice would erode moral accountability, potentially destabilizing ethical and social systems. Embracing free will fosters empathy, kindness, and empowerment, encouraging individuals to act for justice, equality, and the common good demonstrated by its tangible impact on society
From a perspective that incorporates elements of both free will and determinism, one could argue that while external factors such as genetics, upbringing, and environment may influence our choices to some extent, individuals still have the capacity to exercise action and make decisions within the constraints of these influences. Our actions may be shaped by our circumstances, but we also have the ability to reflect, deliberate, and consciously choose how to respond to them. In this view, free will and determinism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather interact in a complex and nuanced manner
I believe humanity must have free will, and even if not, we must think we do. If everyone thinks their actions are predetermined, no one will ever be motivated to do anything.