Does Free Will Exist

We often say that we are the product of our decisions, but are we in complete control over

the choices we make? For instance, when I choose to read a book, is it me who made the decision,

or is it the environment in which all the other kids are reading the same book that’s decided for me.

Many people believe there are other, more influential, factors that control our day-to-day decision

making, which contradicts our traditional and innate assumption that we have free will. The

existence of a free will has long been a debate between scientists and philosophers. What we

perceive as an innate assumption may fail to justify itself when we take a more analytical look at it.

So hopefully a further exploration of the topic may lead to an interesting conclusion.

Free will is defined by the ability to make decisions freely by free independently from other

factors such as those of social, racial, or religious ones (Augustyn). This, therefore, implies that we

should be completely responsible and accounted for the consequences of our behavior, which seems

reasonable in most cases. One of our first examples of free will came from the Bible and its story of

Adam and Eve. Regardless of God, an all-powerful being, commanding Adam and Eve not to eat

the forbidden fruit, Adam still ended up breaking the rule. The consequence, therefore, is the

endless evil and death that we, upon till this say, endure. This is a classic example of the free will

that we possess.

This leads to another more indirect proof of the existence of free will—religion. In this case,

I’m using Christianity as an example, but the general principle applies to different religions as well.

Christianity is based on the story that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was born 2000 years ago and

lived a sinless life only to be betrayed and killed on a cross for the saving of “our” sins; Jesus Christ

defeated death and on the third day after his death, marked his resurrection, which is now celebrated

annually through Easter. And the whole Christian community base their faith in this story; they

believe its credibility wholeheartedly. However, for the nonbelievers, the truth of this particular

story is questionable, which may be the reason why a lot of people choose to not believe in the
existence of God. Now here’s the dilemma. If God were to show up today, and perform all the

miracles that have ever recorded on the Bible and orders humans to worship him and praise him, the

credibility of the Bible will surely increase. However, this takes away our free will. We wouldn’t be

believing in the Bible because of tens and dozens of personal reasons; we would be believing in

God because he showed up and told us to do so. There’s value in the freedom of choice, although it

may lead to a lot of mistakes and miserable consequences. Part of a religion’s value is based on our

freedom of choice, which builds a more personal bridge of faith in the choices we make. Freedom is

needed if “we are to become fully functional human beings” according to humanistic psychologists

such as Maslow (1943) and Rogers (1951). They view human’s self-actualization as a special

human necessity and as a form of “motivation setting us apart from all other species. (McLeod)” In

my opinion, no matter how obvious an answer of choice is, part of being a human is about having

the power to freely choose, otherwise it would be taking away our value of existing. Free will needs

to exist.

On the other hand, a more popular approach to explaining our behavior is determinism.

Determinism argues that human behaviors all have a cause to trace back to. We are controlled not

by free will, rather it’s the internal, mental, and external, environmental, forces that dictate our

decisions. Since there are a pattern and history to the actions we make, determinists believe that

actions are predicable (McLeod). There are two different measurements of determinism: external

determinism and internal determinism. Environmental determinism describes the origin of a

behavior “as being outside the individual, such as parental influence, the media, or school.” When it

comes to parental influence, there are a lot of case studies that observe the differences in the

behavior of kids raised with different parents. The Fred and Barney case study is one of them. Fred

and Barney are a pair of identical twins. After being adopted, Fred’s parents were selfish and

violent; Barney’s parents were kind and valued honesty. When investigated unto Fred and Barney’s

reaction to finding 1000 dollars and an I.D. card, the results were unsurprising. Fred chose to keep
the money himself because he was raised to accept money through any form. Barney returned the

money to its owner knowing that his parents raised him to value integrity and honesty. Since there

are no biological differences between the two, the affecting factor came down to parental influence,

which resulted in a powerful and large difference in the characteristics of the two kids (Slattery).

Behaviorism is another form of external determinism. Burrhus Frederic Skinner, also known as B.

F. Skinnier, was a popular behaviorist who was also a heavy promoter of the social learning theory.

He believed that people find more success in learning through “observable behavior rather than

internal mental events (McLeod).” I agree with this a lot. One direct personal experience I could

give is that children learn languages and slangs the fastest and most efficient through the

interactions and observations with the people who speak those languages. Internal determinism sees

our behavior as products of the differences in our biological codings and innate traits such as

outgoingness or shyness. We are viewed as a final product since the day of our birth since our genes

determine who we are and what our actions are. This is weak to me because I believe more in the

nurture side rather than nature. Neuroplasticity suggests that behavior trends can change and

reshape through hard work and repetition (C. Shiel Jr). If we can reorganize our habits, the claim

that the genes and traits we were born with determine our adult life will, therefore, be weakened. I

was a relatively lazy and shy kid growing up, and I was able to change through a change of mindset

to become a favorable person; therefore, I believe internal determinism is an unjustified argument.

Although many factors influence our actions, how much are and should those outside factors

be accounted for the consequences of our actions? I believe even if environments affect our

decisions, we, the decision-makers, should still be held mostly accountable for our actions,

otherwise, determinism can be used as a tool for criminal activities. Determinism differs in levels:

soft determinism and hard determinism. Starting with hard determinism, it argues that all actions are

traceable to a cause, making actions uncontrollable. Behaviorism is part of hard determinism. One

important moral dilemma that comes with hard determinism is criminal justice. Because humans
don’t have control over their actions, they shouldn’t, therefore, be held accountable for criminal

activities. Since a murderer didn’t have a choice other than committing murder, he shouldn’t be

responsible. However, to say that someone has no choices other than committing a crime does not

equal to the actions being morally right, which means they should still be responsible for their

actions. Hard determinism is unacceptable in my opinion because it encourages immoral actions

and bad habits such as laziness and dishonesty since the person can just use “I don’t have a choice”

as an excuse.

Soft determinism, on the other hand, does not exclude the idea of free will completely. It

believes that our external and internal factors are only affecting our will to a certain extent, our free

will is still what makes the final decisions. I believe this is a more acceptable theory. While free will

exists, we are, to some degree, still binding with environmental and genetic factors when we make

decisions. This means that we are still responsible for our actions since there isn’t an excuse or

cause of our actions. Compatibilism is a similar form of philosophy. It claims that free will and

determinism are compatible (Augustyn). Compatibilists believe that while we can make decisions

based on our liking, our nature is unchanged. Humans make decisions that satisfy their greatest

desire, so while we can choose which choices we make, we ultimately make decisions based on a

predetermined nature. Matthew 7:15-20 from the Bible is where Jesus suggests that “healthy trees

cannot produce diseased fruit.” This is consistent with compatibilism’s viewpoint. “Thus, if we are

still in our sins we will choose and produce bad fruit accordingly. The same is with those who

produce good fruit (N.A.).”

I think determinism is a very rational approach compared to the free will argument. For

instance, if one were raises in a criminal-filled environment, it is easy to trace back the origin of his

criminal activity when he/she grows up to be a criminal. Determinism offers a more reliable and

reasonable explanation to human actions, therefore making it easier to understand certain human

behaviors. This could potentially contribute to the study of human behavior and help prevent
criminal activities. Although I think it’s too extreme when it comes to hard determinism. People can

make other factors responsible for their actions completely, therefore, building a bad habit and

example for the younger generation. If we learn best when observing behaviors, we are therefore

promoting actions that are ruthless and childish because their consequences can be blamed on other

external factors. Free will does exist, but environmental and biological influences cannot be

ignored. So while we do have the blessing of having to power to make decisions, we are also,

sometimes unconsciously, affected by a series of other factors. All actions, regardless of their cause,

will have a consequence, so it is our responsibility to make sure we think and act like adults when

we make every decision because the outcomes eventually make us who we are.
 Works Cited

Augustyn, Adam. “Free Will.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 23 Nov.

2017, www.britannica.com/topic/free-will.

Augustyn, Adam. “Compatibilism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 23

Nov. 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/compatibilism.

C. Shiel Jr., William. “Definition of Neuroplasticity.” MedicineNet, MedicineNet, 24 Jan. 2017,

www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40362.

Mcleod, Saul. “Freewill vs Determinism.” Freewill and Determinism | Simply Psychology, 2019,

www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html.

Mcleod, Saul. “Skinner - Operant Conditioning.” B.F. Skinner | Operant Conditioning | Simply

Psychology, 2018, www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html.

N.A., N.A. “Theopedia ‘Compatibilism.’” Theopedia.com, 2019, www.theopedia.com/

compatibilism.

Slattery, Trick. “Free Will Intuitions: Fred and Barney Case Study - InfoGraphic.” Free Will

Intuitions: Fred and Barney Case Study - InfoGraphic, 26 June 2018,

breakingthefreewillillusion.com/free-will-intuitions-infographic/.