Free Will: A Contested Concept in Human Lives

The subject of free will is quite inevitable in human lives because it encompasses almost all the vital aspects of human lives. In this manner, free will dictates human behavior and choices by informing what an individual should and should not do. According to Harris, Human beings are not entirely free because their actions and choices are constrained by pre-existing and pre-determined decisions that they cannot escape or change (Harris 9). Even so, Harris' ideas backing his argument that free will is an illusion distinctly complicates the law, religion, and morality. Harris' fee will is based on its incoherence regarding moral, religious, and legal frameworks that incapacitate human beings' freedom.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Unconscious Decision-Making

Social psychology asserts that the unconscious mind has a significant influence on various aspects of life, especially decision-making processes. Therefore, human beings are not entirely free to make decisions and act as they deem necessary (Mele 1). In this manner, human beings remain unaware of the environmental factors influencing their activities, and an excellent example is the neurophysiological processes initiating the dynamic feelings, perceptions, thoughts, moods as well as behavior (Harris 7). Free will, based on Harris arguments, complicates legal, moral, and religious in different ways. A typical example that shows a three-dimensional way through which it complicates these three fundamental aspects is the case of criminals. Harries states that the existence of free will render judicial frameworks, as well as justice dispensation incongruous, because deterring, rehabilitating, and containing criminals would be the most appropriate way of handling criminals (Harris 1). For instance, when a criminal is caught, he or she will be subjected to the law to serve justice to his or her victims. The move and decision to subject such an individual to legal treatment overlooks the alternative, which is rehabilitating or deterring the criminal, which could be equally well and probably the best way of managing the criminal. To this end, decisions made by human beings are products of unknown underlying causes, and worse still, human beings cannot subject these causes to conscious control over them.

Conceptual Incoherence

The aspect of conceptual incoherence disputes religious concepts, and particularly that touching on creation and miracles. One of the fundamental points brought forth by Harris is that human beings are not responsible for their actions because their prior causes initiate the whole process through which they occur (Harris 5). The soul's involvement in decision-making depends on the brain's functions in decision making. As a result, free will becomes an illusionary afterthought (Mele 5). Even so, it generates in the interplay between the three aspects of life. For instance, the thoughts and beliefs of human beings are constrained by legal, religious, and moral frameworks, and this leaves no room for human beings to be autonomous and make their decisions. Instead, the decisions cannot be "self-generated" to allow human beings to live a life based on their desires, intentions, beliefs as well as actions (Harrison 28). For instance, free will, based on moral grounds, will determine the good and bad actions, and this will dictate the choice of human beings. In such a manner, human beings do not have the freedom to make choices as they deem necessary because they aim at making decisions within moral constraints. The same case applies to the religious and legal aspects, and in the latter's case, the law will require human beings to conform to particular behavioral patterns. Therefore, human beings will have to shape their choices and decisions to match the specifications given by the law, and to this point, absolute freedom of choice is incapacitated. The complication arises when a question is asked to seek a clarification of the rationale of law's or free will's existence. Arguably, one of them should be scrapped because either of them can perform in all aspects of life. As with religion, mortality, and legal aspects erect, and again, the question of its essence is asked. Even so, the most significant complication regarding religion revolves around the biological aspects of decision-making and the freedom of choice. Religious constraints outline particular believers for believers, and it is along these constraints that believers consider particular actions and decisions. Therefore, the complication arises when it ties individuals to a particular framework of operation, and yet it should give the freedom to choose and make independent decisions. To this end, the aspect of conceptual incoherence arises in distinct ways because the ideal expectations are negated (Mele 3).

Autonomy and Freedom of Choice

Even though free will and autonomy are talked about and justified by the fact that individuals make their decisions, human beings are not entirely autonomous for various reasons. An excellent reason discounting autonomy and the freedom of choice is existentialism by stating that human beings have the choice to scrutinize, multiple times, their lives and events in which the net effect is a lockdown to particular decisions. Naturally, while some thoughts are depressing, others are empowering, and these are the specific outcomes shaping decision-making even though human beings might have not necessarily triggered their existence (Harris 40). The lockdown justifies non-existent free will, and this complicates moral, religious as well as legal aspects of life. For instance, whichever of the three, one would not make a decision that would elucidate negative consequences and suffering. The law, to being with, clearly spells the difference between the legal and illegal actions, behaviors, and practices in which a violation results in severe consequences. Religion, however, is somewhat liberal and tends to give human beings the chance to make choices. However, the possibility of autonomy of decision-making is clipped with both moral and particular religious doctrines. To this point, human beings must conform to the desirable decisions, behaviors, and actions that do not attract severe consequences as stated in religious doctrines.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, free will is the quality and the freedom of choice through which human beings' autonomy in decision-making regarding actions and behaviors emerge. It requires human beings to make their decisions without external influence. The subject of free will and its existence has been subject to debate for centuries, and Harris thinks that it is non-existent, and it complicates religion, the law as well as moral doctrines. Harris argues that free will is undermined by the clearly stated legal, moral, and religious constraints because the net effect of these factors incapacitated or down stepped free will. One of the fundamental ways through which free will complicates the law is the conflict arising between the freedom of choice and the legal frameworks of punishing criminals. The law subject criminals to legal processes that see them punished, and in the process, alternatives such as rehabilitation are not considered. The point drawn by Harris is that such decisions by the legal practitioners are pre-determined.

Works Cited

Harris, Sam. Free will. Simon and Schuster, 2012. Accessed from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=iRpkNcRt1IcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=harris+free+will&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp96-6noDmAhUitHEKHZ3uDM4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=harris%20free%20will&f=false

Mele, Alfred R. Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will. , 2015. Internet resource. Accessed from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=3LAiBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=How+does+Harris%E2%80%99+idea+of+a+lack+of+free+will+complicate+morality,+law,+and+religion?&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik7KaunYDmAhVAQhUIHcSDAzQQ6AEINzAC#v=onepage&q&f=false