Paper Example on Free Will vs Determinism: The Philosophical Debate

Introduction

The philosophy of free will vs. determinism has existed since the beginning of time. The philosopher Franklin has always suggested that human behavior might be a result of forces that we have no control over (23). On the other hand, the free will philosophers support the idea that we can have some choices in how we act. Freewill philosophy suggests that people can assume and choose their behavior. For example, humans have free will to choose whether they would like to commit a crime or not (Franklin 23). However, the free will philosophy does not suggest that behavior is random; it only emphasizes that humans are free from causal influences of past events.

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

Save 25%

In relatable terms, freewill makes everyone responsible for their actions. Determinism, however, stresses that free will is only an illusion. All behaviors have a cause and are determined either by external or internal forces. It is essential to realize that we don't have control over the external or internal forces.

The argument of free will and determinism can only be understood further after logically determining how humans can know they have fee will. In this paper, the analysis uses George Saunders, "Escape from Spider head" to analyze elements of free will that can inform our knowledge of whether humans are under a free will or determinism.

Thesis Statement

Amidst the debate of free will and determinism, something is quite clear, Free Will exists. Although this perspective is subject to proof, the text by George Saunders, 'Escape from Spider Head, ' points out elements that will support the position and argument that humans have free will to determine what happens in their lives. Other factors might contribute as much as possible to determine the fate of another human. However, the individuals will come up with the ability to control their feelings, emotions, and actions through their interest. Humans control their actions and emotions and are not controlled by any internal or external forces.

Discussion

Right from the plot's exposition, the author uses a first-person narrative told by a character Jeff. Jeff is in a prison system. The prison system is a symbol of external forces that prove determinism. Within the prison, the victims are subjected to scientific experiments in an attempt to control their emotions. The chemical used to control emotions are a symbol of internal forces of determinism that limit humans from making personal choices and actions. The chemicals have serum with mind-altering capabilities. Through the character Jeff, the author depicts the environment as a dystopian where there is very limited ethical mindfulness. The limitation of ethical mindfulness in the text is intentional. The author seeks to dismiss the common belief that ethics is a factor that contributes to determinism. The condition that Abnesti and the chemical environment put to the likes of Jeff creates a view that they are guinea pigs used for chemical experiments. From the above perspective, the proof that Jeff and others like him display free will is that they are conscious and aware that Abnesti is about to send drips of the chemical into their bodies. It is such an independent feeling that raises their agency as subjects and get control over their feeling just before they are given the chemicals that control their emotions. From the paragraph above, it is clear that humans can determine free will when they can control their emotions and feelings in an environment with limited ethical considerations (Osman 77). The above suggestion is linked to the belief that ethics is one of the forces contributing to determinism.

The second analysis, which is proof of free will comes from a conflict between the narrator and Abnesti. Abnesti shares a warm relationship with the subjects in scene two. He asks Jeff for permission to put the drip on, He says, "Jeff, Can I put the drip on." Proof of a warm relationship is seen when the death of Heather saddens him. Abnesti says, "I am sorry she is gone" (Saunders 4). The conflict is seen when Jeff inquires from Abnesti why he has to continue his job of giving the chemical to the subjects. Jeff's character in demanding Abnesti's opinions and intentions on his job is proof of how the chemical is inefficient. If the chemical controlled the subjects' emotions, it would not be possible for them to question the intentions of the master. Following the conflict above, Jeff commands the respect of Abnesti, and he is no longer a subject but an object. Although through recognition, Jeff Is a subject, he is not treated like one. The aspect of free will is seen when humans can be directed as subjects, but still, proceed not to give in to the pressure and question their masters' intention. Had the chemicals been in full control of the subjects, they would behave like military men trained to take the order and not question orders. From this analysis, it is clear that human free will can be proven when they have the option to follow their master for fear of punitive actions strictly, but decide to question their master on his intention (Osman 77). More interestingly, the subjects inquire about their master's background to determine his intentions for treating them the way he does. Even though the narration is numb about the background of Abnesti, the audience cannot help but question his commitment to the chemical experiments, especially after acknowledging that he feels pain for his subjects.

The last proof of freewill is evidenced at the denouement part of the plot. Jeff decides that he has gone through enough and wants to put the suffering to an end. He narrates," Drawn to one mirror with the sound of my death (Saunders 10). Besides the control that the experimenting places on Jeff, he has the feeling feels he cannot remain a slave anymore. To put an end to it, Jeff feels he can escape through committing suicide. One could argue that Jeff is not in control of who he is until he commits suicide. In trying to prove the mentioned argument, one would say that suicide is a symbol of how humans cannot surpass more significant identities in their life. That when humans try to overcome their fate, it becomes tragic. A counter-argument of proof of free will comes from the perspective that it through free will that Jeff feels he has to get out of his mystery. If at all the chemical dripped in him would be controlling his emotions, he would not have the free will to commit suicide. The chemicals should make him lose control over his emotion. However, free will is seen as Jeff can form his own emotions and decide an escape plan. Freewill is not decided by doing things that only morally upright in the face of the general public. Freewill is doing things without being compromised of emotions, or actions. Jeff has completed an action based on his intended emotions. Based on the perspective explained above, humans can know that they have free will when they are not compromised in their decisions and emotions. It does not matter what fate might hold for anyone as long as they make decisions; they exercise free will.

Conclusion

From the discussion above, three instances inform humans how to determine free will and prove that it exists. The three instances explain freedom through having the presence of emotions, defying ethical decisions to make personal decisions, and questioning your master even if it means creating a conflict. From these analyses, there is logic to claim that the thesis is correct. Free will to humans exits and, those who believe there is determinism are captive of their minds.

Works Cited

Franklin, Richard Langdon. Freewill and determinism: A study of rival conceptions of man. Vol. 7. Taylor & Francis, 2017. https://reederman.wordpress.com/essay-1/

Osman, Magda. "Overstepping the boundaries of free choice: Folk beliefs on free will and determinism in real-world contexts." Consciousness and Cognition 77 (2020): 102860. http://wordchoicesoprfhs.blogspot.com/2015/08/

Saunders, George. "Escape from Spiderhead." New Yorker (2010): 111. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/escape-from-spiderhead