The poet William Ernest Henley states that “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul” (Chaffe 4.2). This sentiment is something that most of us can relate to. It is without question that almost all of us want to believe that we have free will or in charge of our own freedom. However, many others believe that freedom is an illusion; that our freedom are restrained or limited to forces that are beyond our control. People who think like Henley are referred to as indeterminists; those who think that freedom is an illusion are referred to as determinists. I believe that both of these theories have some truths to them, but I also believe that they are flawed. In this paper, I will argue that compatibilism is the most convincing theory in regards to free will because there are instances in which our actions are the results of external factors, but there also instances in which our actions are not the results of external factors but the results of our desires.
Determinists, like Baron d’Holbach, believe that there is no such thing as true freedom and that none of our choices or decisions are really “free” because of both internal and external restrictions. “External constraints are those imposed by [our] environment and [our] circumstances; internal constraints involve limitations to our autonomy we impose on ourselves” (Chafee 4 review). It is true that sometimes certain choices we make are the cause of predetermined factors or because we have discovered the causal relationships of events. For example, we do some actions like setting an alarm clock, maintain a balanced diet, take vitamins, turn the key in the ignition of our car, “based on [our] general belief that everything that occurs in the physical world has a cause (or causes) and that by discovering these causal relationships between events, we can predict and influence what will happen in the future” (Chaffee 4.2). Also there are some things that are already predetermined like who are parents are and are physical attributes, but there are things that we have control over and choose like the person we become or the college we attend. Yes some of our actions may be already predetermined, but even so we make decisions or commit these actions because of free will. There is nothing governing us telling us go do this or go do that; we have the free will to make our own choices. Determinism does not believe in free will. It believes that everything that happens in our lives is the only possible thing that could happen, no alternative possibilities exists. In essence, free will is that people can have more than one possible choice to a situation, but a determinist does not believe that. To them the concept of multiple options is illusory; whatever choice the person arrive at was inevitable. That is why I believe that determinism and free will can’t coexist.
Indeterminists believe that the choices that we make in life are made freely. Jean-Paul Sartre, a popular indeterminist, not only says that we are free but that our freedom is a condemnation. He also explains that “we are oriented toward the future, continually weighing options and considering our choices; that faculty of consideration and choosing is what makes us truly free” (Chaffee 4 review). Those who are indeterminists think that some of our actions are independent of external or internal factors and that freedom is genuinely possible in some aspects of life. From the indeterminist perspective, “[we] choose which path to take and [we] are responsible for that choice. If [we] found [ourselves] in exactly the same situation, [we] might very well choose another path” (Chaffee 4.4). Basically whatever we choose from options that are in front of us, there is the belief that we could have made another choice. I very much agree with that assertion. When we make choices in life we have to hold ourselves responsible and accountable for those choices. In theory, indeterminism sounds good but the problem with it is that it does not necessarily believe that we have free will because it “leave open the possibility that undetermined actions are simply random” (Chaffee 4.4). I do not believe that there are any actions that are random, whatever action we commit we have the free will to choose to commit them.
Compatibilism, even though it is sometimes referred to as “soft” determinism, is a blend of the two previous theories with the added benefit of acknowledging free will. Yes, there are some choices that are way beyond our control but that does not mean that we do not have freedom. Compatibilists, like W. T. Stace, believe that people can have free will or be free and responsible in the decisions and choices they make in life when they act “on the basis of their own desires; and they are unfree (and not responsible) if they are being compelled to do something they don’t wish to do” (Chaffee 4.3). An example of someone who is free would be someone who willingly go into a march in which they will be arrested, this person is free because he went to the march because he wanted to. Contrast that with someone who is forced to tell lies to save themselves from death. This person is unfree because he did not want to tell lies but he did it because he was forced. Determinists, like d’Holbach, would have us believe that life has no meaning and that we are just beings going through the motions of life because every decision and choice is already predetermined out there in the universe. This seems like a radical and disconcerting idea to me. Compatibilism is in agreement with determinism about the existence of universal causal laws, but contrary to determinists, compatibilists like David Hume argue that free choice or free will are possible. These compatibilists insist “that we can consider human actions free if they are the result of internal motivations, not the product of external influences or constraints” (Chaffee 4 review). The goal of compatibilism is to bridge the gap or “to find a common ground between determinism and indeterminism…[and] is a worthy effort to understand the nature of personal freedom” (Chaffee 4.3). In other words, compatibilism is in the middle of the two extremes and that is why the theory seems perfectly reasonable to me.
In conclusion, I believe that the theory of compatibilism is the most convincing in regards to free will because it is an alignment of the two theories determinism and indeterminism. I happen to agree with certain aspects of determinism and indeterminism. I agree with determinism that there are some choices in life that are predetermined and that are beyond our control, but determinism believe that everything in life is predetermined and that is just perplexing and makes no sense. I also agree with indeterminism that we make our choices freely and that we are responsible for the choices we make, but I do not agree with indeterminism’s assertion that there are actions that are random. In my opinion there is no such thing as random actions. All of the choices we make are made with purpose and we commit our actions because we have the free will to choose. Herein lies my main problem with the two theories, it is that they deny the concept of free will. Compatibilism on the other hand states that there are some choices that are beyond our control, but and that there are some choices that we make based on our desires and that free will is used to make these choices.