Free Will Dispute: A Sample Research Paper For Inspiration & Mimicking

The discussion, whether free will exists, persists in philosophy for centuries. Numerous arguments were put forth by both determinists and libertarians. And while the aim of these arguments is to prove either of the viewpoints, the question of why exactly should either of them be proven and their practical consequences are not less important. In this paper, I will argue against the existence of free will in a libertarian sense, explain the consequences of libertarian and determinist positions and tell why I found this topic particularly interesting.
The debates around free will mostly address the free will which is understood as some capacity in humans which is not predetermined by anything else. There is, however, another definition of this concept which comes from soft determinists. They consider that all actions are caused, but that free will should be understood not in the sense of not being predetermined but in the sense of not being forced to. When talking about the first one which is more fundamental than the latter (and much harder identifiable), it should be maintained that it is only a delusion. Regarding this issue, I’m finding Blatchford’s argument very consistent and persuasive. Libertarians often state that if there were no free will people would not experience making free choices and would not reflect on having made a mistake. When an individual is at the point when he is to make a choice, he is free in choosing either of the options and feeling that he is freely choosing. He can also reflect in the future about making it right or wrong, it is not this kind of freedom which is affected, it is the actual choice he made which is predetermined. People have free will in a subjective sense, but it is predetermined by heredity and environment what exactly will they choose. There are two kinds of processes – predetermined and stochastic or random. If according to libertarians free will is not predetermined by anything then it must be random. And the individuals claimed morally responsible for the random choices is a contradiction.
Why does existence of free will bother anyone at all? It is because of its consequences regarding moral responsibility. The libertarian position implies that individuals are morally culpable for their actions, whilst determinist position finds that they are not. However, the whole concept of moral culpability is needed for the sake of administering punishment in retributive justice. When looking from a broader perspective, punishment itself has value only as a deteriorative activity. It means that there is no need for moral culpability outside retributive justice concept. Which begs the question whether free will should be argued for at all.
I found this part of the topic particularly interesting because the practical and subjective aspects of free will are often misinterpreted. The libertarians often devise arguments based on personal feelings, which are not related to the topic at all. Moreover, given that arguing is a goal-oriented process, the goals of both positions should be properly assessed. And in my opinion, the objective of libertarian discourse has no internal value for the modern society.
The free will debate persists in the center of philosophical discussions for a very long time already. In this paper, I have argued for free will being only a delusion, discussed the practical consequences or goals of libertarians and determinists and explained why I have found this particular part of the topic interesting.