Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5958
Free will is a lie
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
vi_777
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
1. Logic: The Importance of Free Will in Human Action
Argument: Free will is essential to moral responsibility and personal agency. Without free will, actions lose meaning because people would not be accountable for their choices. Logic dictates that responsibility requires choice: if individuals cannot choose their actions, it would be irrational to praise or blame them.
Supporting Points:
- Responsibility and Accountability: If free will is a lie, the concepts of moral responsibility and justice become meaningless. We cannot hold someone accountable for something they had no control over. For example, we punish criminals because we assume they had the free will to commit their crime and could have chosen differently.
- Choice and Ethics: In ethical discussions, the ability to choose freely underpins all moral decisions. If free will were a lie, there would be no ethical system that makes sense because it depends on the idea that people can make moral choices.
2. Philosophy: Free Will and Moral Philosophy
Argument: Major philosophical frameworks support the existence of free will. Notable philosophers argue that we do have the ability to act independently and make choices based on our desires and reasoning.
Supporting Points:
- Immanuel Kant: Kant argued that moral agency requires free will. In his "Critique of Practical Reason," he emphasizes that for people to be held accountable for their actions, they must have the freedom to choose between different courses of action. Without free will, moral judgment loses its meaning.
- Jean-Paul Sartre: Sartre’s existentialism posits that humans are condemned to be free. This "condemnation" means that humans have no choice but to choose and that this capacity for choice defines human existence. This indicates that freedom is fundamental to human life.
3. Science: Neuroscience and Psychology
Argument: While neuroscience shows unconscious brain activity before conscious decisions, this does not eliminate free will. The brain’s preparation to act does not negate conscious reflection and choice.
Supporting Points:
- Neuroscience (Libet’s Experiment): Yes, the Libet Experiment suggests that unconscious brain activity precedes conscious awareness of decision-making. However, this does not eliminate free will. Libet himself concluded that while brain activity may "prepare" decisions, conscious veto power remains. We have the ability to stop or modify the actions the brain is preparing, which indicates some level of free will in our decisions.
- Self-Reflection and Consciousness: Neuroscientific theories show that while unconscious processes influence our behavior, conscious thought and decision-making are central to human experience. Our brain doesn’t just react to external stimuli; it also reflects, deliberates, and acts based on reasoning, which suggests freedom of choice.
4. Compatibilism: Reconciling Free Will with Determinism
Argument: Free will can coexist with determinism, and the existence of determinism doesn’t negate human freedom. Compatibilism suggests that while our actions might be influenced by genetics or environment, we still retain the capacity to make independent choices within those influences.
Supporting Points:
- David Hume (Philosophical Compatibilism): Hume argued that freedom is compatible with determinism. He defined freedom not as the absence of causes, but the ability to act according to one's desires and intentions. For instance, even though our desires may be influenced by our environment, we can still choose actions that align with those desires in meaningful ways.
- Human Agency: Just because a person’s actions are influenced by their environment, biology, or past experiences doesn’t mean they have no free will. People can still act based on self-reflection, reasoning, and choices that feel autonomous to them, showing that free will exists within a framework of determinism.
5. Real-Life Examples: Free Will in Action
Argument: Free will can be seen in everyday actions and decisions, from personal habits to societal changes. People actively make choices based on their beliefs, values, and reflections, indicating that free will is a functional part of human existence.
Supporting Points:
- Breaking Habits and Addiction: Many people successfully break free from addiction or unhealthy habits, showing that even when biology, environment, or past experiences influence their actions, individuals can make conscious decisions to change their behavior. This demonstrates autonomy and free will.
- Social Change Movements: Individuals have made significant choices to challenge established norms—whether in civil rights, gender equality, or environmentalism. These movements are based on individuals’ choices to resist or alter societal norms, which highlights that free will plays a role in how we shape our future.
6. Conclusion: The Realness of Free Will
Argument: Free will is not a lie because it is essential for personal agency, accountability, ethics, and human progress. Philosophical arguments, scientific findings, and real-world examples all point to the fact that, despite the influences on our behavior, we still have the capacity to choose and exercise free will.
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
i didn't see that, so........
Then why did you accept the challenge as is? Why didn’t you ask Pro to change argument time before accepting the challenge?
well the rzn of our forfeiture is that pro didn't set the time limit quite right<newbie> so with just 2 hours of time, we didn't get to express anything.
well, yes ofc, so as long their actions weren't under them, it would be irrational.
"if individuals cannot choose their actions, it would be irrational to praise or blame them."
Exactly. It is irrational to blame anyone.
but well since u r a beginner, then no worries.
(｡◕‿◕｡)
DUDE, U SHOULD HV SET THE TIME CORRECTLY/