Angelica Zheng

Word Count: 1199

The Desire for Argument Versus Free Action

In the discussions on the ability of individuals to act freely, Dan Korman stood defending

that human beings are the ones who decide on what they desire, and also it is hard for humans to

change or control their desires (Chao,2020). In the process, what we choose as individuals is

always determined by what an individual is not in a position of control, and one cannot act freely.

The argument is so hard to challenge because of the existing logic that is surrounded by. One can

never change their desires since individuals are programmed in a manner that just focuses on what

they need to form their mindsets. On the statement that we always choose what we desire, there is

a greater assumption that none of our actions we make are based on choice but through force on

the concept based on our desire. At first, in section 1, I’ll accept the argument, but with a closer

analysis of the statement in section 2 and 3, I am in a position of realizing that the first argument

contains a lot of assumptions that are based on the choices one can easily argue against the ideology.

Section 1 -- Korman's arguments

Examples of Korman's arguments include:

(DS1) What you choose to do is always determined by your desires.

(DS2) You can’t control your desires.

(DS3) So, what you choose to do is always determined by something you can’t control.

(DS4) If so, then you never act freely.

(DS5) So, you never act freely.

With DS1 claiming that choice is normally governed by desire, I debate that in most cases,

most individual decisions are normally against what individuals need. In this section, I will

describe the argument by Korman on desire against free action. While on the next section, I will

provide a more detailed argument on obligation against desire. In the final section, I will come up

with objections concerning methods that I can put in place to counter the argument and how I will

respond to them. The essay shall basically cover an argument on the role of desires in the decision-

making process and whether it is true or it is an assumption that has been made by every individual.

Section 2 -- Moral Obligation Argument Against Desire

The argument made by Korman makes logical sense; there is no arguing that. However, I

believe that his first argument, DS1, allows for significant room for debate. By claiming "what

you choose is always determined by your desires,” (Chao,2020). Korman ignores the common

occurrence of going against what you want to preserve your moral obligation. When faced with a

decision, it is common for you to encounter the crossroads of “Should I do what I want?” or

“Should I do what’s right?” This is the case of doing what you want versus doing what’s best for

you in the long run (Killoren,2020). I would argue that most people stifle their desires because

they would likely lead them down the wrong path or not serve them in the long run. For example,

say I had plans with my boyfriend, and he calls to cancel right before we meet up because he wants

to hang with his friends. While I may be justified in my frustration, I know that this is not the

incident that will cause us to break up. So, while I may desire to get angry with him and express

how frustrated I am by his actions, I know that this is the wrong course of action if I want to avoid
an argument or premature breakup. Instead, my conscience tells me to ignore my desire to express

my anger, and instead, I ask him to talk about it later where I can express my feelings healthily

and constructively. Scenarios like this one occur daily, and in my opinion, more often than not,

people decide to do what's right versus what they want. By following this logic, I constructed a

new argument:

(MO1) You can’t control desires

(MO2) Acting on desires is acting without control

(MO3) Often, desire contradicts moral obligation

(MO4) Acting on the moral obligation is acting freely.

(MO5) When you make a choice that goes against your desire, you prove that you can act freely.

(MO6) When you choose to act according to moral obligation, you act freely.

(MO7) So, you do act freely.

My new claim is that you can act freely and that not all actions are determined by your

desires. I still acknowledge that you cannot control your desires, and therefore, when making

choices based on desires, your actions are no longer in your control (Killoren,2020). My argument

simply offers a new option, to act on moral obligation rather than desire alone.

Section 3 -- Response to Counter Argument

I argue that moral obligation has more influence over choices than desire does, and

therefore actions are free. However, some may argue that moral obligation is simply the desire to

do the right thing. This would mean that when faced with a choice, what is right versus what you
want, both choices are desires (Killoren,2020). The desire to do what you want versus the desire

to do right by yourself. I would argue against this claim because it implies that desiring something

means wanting, needing, or choosing something because you should. But this is not how Korman

defines desire.

In my opinion, Korman’s argument can be refuted because of the way it defines desires,

“By ‘desire’, I mean any kind of wanting, including passionately yearning for something, but also

less dramatic things, like wanting to buy some more socks.” According to this definition, desires

are wants. Wants that you cannot control, monitor, or edit with conscience or logic (Tillman 535).

Pure wants stem from feeling alone, and we accept that feelings cannot be controlled. Doing what

is right or will benefit you, in the long run, is determined by thought and consideration and can be

controlled. I view desire as raw and unedited wanting for things and outcomes, while the moral

obligation is carefully considered and cultivated throughout a person's lifetime. It shows maturity

and control over hasty tendencies, but it does not alter a person's desires because, like Dan Korman

would say, "we do not choose our desires."

While it may be comforting to believe that our actions are not free and that we are absolved

of responsibility when we choose poorly, I do not believe that is the case. Korman argued that

choice is always determined by desires. But most of the time, we halt our desires to maintain

stability, safety, and wellbeing in our lives. Our moral obligation to do what is right for us may not

always be more powerful than desire, but it certainly exists and creates choice, which in turn,

creates free actions. We can ponder the question of whether or not doing the right thing is a desire

that people have, but at the end of the day, sometimes the right thing does not even feel like the

right thing (Tillman,2020). Good choices can be painful and difficult, but we make them

nonetheless, proving that we have control in our decisions and that we act upon free will.
 Works Cited

Castro Chao, Noelia. "Changes in argument structure: Impersonal constructions in Middle and
Early Modern English, with special reference to verbs of Desire. A corpus-based study."
(2020).

Killoren, David. "An Occasionalist Response to Korman and Locke." Journal of Ethics and
Social Philosophy 19.3 (2021).

Tillman, Chris, and Joshua Spencer. "Advanced D&D (Dan Korman and Debunking)." (2020):
533-544.