Ethic, Critical thinking essay 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Valencia College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2600
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by LieutenantElk3747
Philosophical Perspectives on Free Will: d'Holbach, James, and Sartre
Introduction
The question of free will has been a central topic of philosophical debate for centuries, with various thinkers offering diverse perspectives on this complex and enigmatic concept. Among the many
philosophers who have contributed to this discourse, Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach, William James, and Jean-Paul Sartre stand out as pivotal figures with distinctive viewpoints. In this essay, I will summarize the philosophical views of these three thinkers on free will and assess which perspective appears to be the most reasonable. Additionally, I will include how my thoughts have since changed or morphed into different perspectives during my understanding of free will and its involvement after engaging with these philosophers' ideas. At the start of this read before learning about the philosophers I was under the believe of James William a famous philosopher in which he mentions repeatedly the idea of regret and the effects it plays in its understanding of free will and how because of regret we are aware of our true freedom to a certain extent more on this thought process later. Baron d'Holbach, an 18th-century French philosopher, was a prominent
advocate of determinism. He argued that the universe operates according to the laws of nature, and human beings are not exempt from these laws. D'Holbach contended that everything, including human actions, is governed by cause and effect. From his perspective, free will is an illusion, as human decisions and actions are predetermined by the combination of external influences and internal factors such as genetics and upbringing. D'Holbach's deterministic stance led him to reject the concept of moral responsibility, which states that individuals could not be held accountable for actions beyond their control. Personally, while I do understand to a certain degree in which I do believe the world is run by cause and effect, I don't particularly believe everything is something predetermined. I believe it oversimplifies the complexity of human decision-making and the role of consciousness in shaping actions. D'Holbach's deterministic stance, while logically consistent, appears to be the least reasonable from a practical standpoint. Denying free will and moral responsibility to individuals can lead to problematic consequences in legal, ethical, and social contexts.
William James, an American philosopher and psychologist from the late
19th and early 20th centuries, offered a contrasting viewpoint to d'Holbach's determinism. James was a proponent of indeterminism and
believed in the existence of genuine free will. He argued that human beings possess the capacity to make choices that are not entirely determined by antecedent causes. James introduced the concept of "soft determinism" or "compatibilism," which suggests that while external factors and influences do play a role in decision-making, individuals still have a degree of agency and can make choices that align with their values and desires. He emphasized the importance of individual experience and the subjective nature of free will. This Perspective seems more reasonable and it aligns with my everyday experiences of making choices and taking responsibility for my actions.
In this case, I believe out of the 3 readings this ideology is probably the
one I agree with the most as I believe every action is a reaction and that one is in one way or another influenced by the issues around them, while giving us the ability to make decisions and choices based on the understanding of regret. I agree with his philosophy on how regret plays a very important part of free will as only once you reset something you truly are able to understand the options of other choices, which a hard-core determinist would argue. Jean-Paul Sartre, a 20th-century existentialist philosopher, presented yet another perspective on free will. Sartre rejected both determinism and a purely libertarian view of free will. Instead, he argued for a radical form of existential freedom. According to Sartre, human beings are condemned to be free, meaning that we are constantly confronted with the burden of making choices in a world devoid of inherent meaning. While Sartre acknowledged that external circumstances and factors influence our choices, he maintained that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. For Sartre, freedom is a defining aspect of human existence, and individuals must create their values and meanings through their choices and actions. As I read up more about Satre I found myself agree a lot with his ideal of the 3 emotions anguish, abandonment, and despair which run most all individuals choices it was probably the thing that most caught my attention and made me consider this as my second best choice after James but ultimately even after this read I still must say, While Sartre's approach recognizes the complexities of human existence and the inherent tension between external influences and individual freedom I believe we are not inherently free will at all I believe our actions can be
determined by our surroundings still choosing to side with William James.
In conclusion, after assessing the reasonableness of these three perspectives, I find myself in agreement with William James' ideas in philosophy regarding free will. William James' view on free will emerges
as the most reasonable and persuasive. James' compatibilist stance bridges the gap between determinism and libertarianism, offering a balanced perspective that is both philosophically coherent and aligned with our everyday experiences. It acknowledges that external factors, such as social and environmental influences, do play a role in shaping our choices. However, it also affirms the existence of genuine free will, emphasizing individual agency and the capacity to make meaningful decisions. This is crucial in ethical and moral contexts, as it allows for the attribution of praise and blame based on an individual's choices and intentions. We make choices, set goals, and hold ourselves and others accountable for our actions. James' philosophy reflects and validates these practical aspects of human existence. Moreover, James'
perspective leaves room for individual growth and self-improvement. It
emphasizes that individuals can exercise their free will to make choices that align with their values and aspirations. This resonates with
the idea that we can shape our destinies through conscious decisions and efforts. William James' perspective stands out as the most reasonable and compelling. His compatibilist view accounts for both external influences and individual agency, aligning with our everyday experiences and practical understanding of free will. James' ideas in philosophy provide a balanced and nuanced perspective that resonates
with the complexity of human existence. My engagement with James' philosophy has reinforced my belief in the compatibility of free will and
determinism, and I find his perspective to be both reasonable and satisfying.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help