2006-08-15 20:27:05 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Arzy, the body has "a built-in will to survive", but my Q is about free will which I think sometimes overrides the will of the body to live.
2006-08-23 09:06:44 · update #1
None but two of the answers have provided me what I asked for. Crimsonite's answer did discuss the role free will plays in the ethical theories, but it by-passed the ultimate metaphysical issue-of proof for the stmt of belief that "humans have zero will." Rana S makes the interesting point that birth and death (in most cases, my add) is not a freewill choice and that the remaining situations we make choices about in between those events are binary in nature.TWH 08232006
And the winner for best answer is:
.
2006-08-23 09:24:20 · update #2
Yes, humans have zero free will in respect of birth and death. All other acts one can do at the ratio of 50% approximately.
2006-08-23 00:41:13 · answer #1 · answered by Rana S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it. Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. The pessimists therefore conclude that strong free will is not possible, and that ultimate responsibility is not possible either. So no punishment or reward is ever truly just or fair, when it comes to moral matters. We now have the main elements of the problem of free will. It is natural to start with the compatibilist position; but this has only to be stated to trigger the objection that compatibilism cannot possibly satisfy our intuitions about moral responsibility. According to this objection, an incompatibilist notion of free will is essential in order to make sense of the idea that we are genuinely morally responsible. But this view, too, has only to be stated to trigger the pessimists' objection that indeterministic occurrences cannot possibly contribute to moral responsibility: one can hardly be supposed to be more truly morally responsible for one's choices and actions or character if indeterministic occurrences have played a part in their causation than if they have not played such a part. Indeterminism gives rise to unpredictability, not responsibility. It cannot help in any way at all.
2006-08-15 21:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Humans never had free will in the first place. All our actions or reactions are due to our conscience in reflection to a situation.
Even the fact of oxygen. We do not have a choice as to breathe it or not, its already part and parcel of Life. All our daily actions are not of our free will but as a reaction to something or someone. Example is despite the fact that I have a choice as to not to answer this question or not is a free will, but I still tempt to answer it in response to a question you ask. Its unethical to leave a question unanswered in Life.
2006-08-15 21:25:50 · answer #3 · answered by Arzy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The subatomic particles still have a certain amount of randomness. Do humans control that randomness? Not physically. But maybe metaphysically.
Oh hell...I'm confused again.
2006-08-21 15:18:05 · answer #4 · answered by Halbert 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry I cannot. We all have free will to do anything we want. The thing is you always have to lean towards what you feel you can do. Sometimes, you are forced to because you can't push yourself to make your point work. The question is are you using this free will to bring about freedom to do the good???
2006-08-19 05:38:28 · answer #5 · answered by DJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You almost have to be born with this sense, which I was. If you aren't then just simply google free will, and do A LOT of research- then you will find out there is no free will.
2006-08-15 20:31:40 · answer #6 · answered by Einsteininium 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
except people dont always do thing that feel good or in their best intrest.I dont feel like going to crummy job everyday but i do bc I know i need money to pay the bills.I could quit or find another job
thoose showing free will .So you expalntion doest staify the
auestion
2006-08-15 20:42:14 · answer #7 · answered by the_maskedtoaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a logical arguement for humans having no free willw ould be this
People do things that makes themselves feel good. These "things" control a person even if that person is unaware they are being influenced.
2006-08-15 20:32:35 · answer #8 · answered by jska719 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who said that, Einstein? Humans do have as much free will as they want or need. I have no logical arguments, supporting this, nor examples.
Thank you.
2006-08-22 21:04:46 · answer #9 · answered by shardf 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because it's not true. That's all we really have at the end, free will. Without it we'd be "just" animals.
2006-08-22 17:39:54 · answer #10 · answered by R. F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋