Reference no: EM132793256

The main difference between an event and an action is that events happen within a cause-effect relationship that determines what will happen given prior conditions (an object will fall when pushed off a table in a non-vacuum environment), while actions are events that are the result of an agent's intention to make something happen (Sam wanted to get a beer so he decided to get up and get one). The question as it pertains to whether or not we are free is, are the intentions themselves determined by prior conditions or is there an element that decides what we are going to do - the decision itself- that is outside of, and independent of, prior conditions? There are four general positions that can be taken regarding actions and freedom: Determinism, Compatibilism, Libertarianism (not the political use of this term) and Free-will Illusionism.

Determinism: Simply stated, all actions are causally determined meaning that given the prior condition, call it 'a', something will/must happen, call it 'b'; so that if 'a' happens 'b' has to happen and vice-versa. In short there are no free actions; all intentions and decisions are causally determined as well as the resulting actions.

Compatibilism: all actions are causally explainable, but as long as the agent is not compelled by some external force (gun to the head) or internal disability (mental illness or incapacity), the act is 'free.' Imagine a weather vane that moves in the direction that the wind is blowing. It must blow in that direction unless it is welded into place. As long as it is not welded into place, the weather vane is free to blow in the direction it must.

Libertarianism: There is at least one action that is not causally determined; there are no prior conditions that can explain what we decided. There only need be one such act of freedom and then the rest can be causally determined.

Free-will Illusionism: 'Free-will' is a necessary illusion that we use to explain why our lives are significant and meaningful. If we have no choice in how we act, how can our lives have meaning and significance?

"Free-will" or human freedom is an important concept/problem in Philosophy, not only in ethics, but also metaphysics (Personal Identity for example) and questions concerning God's perfect knowledge. If God is all-knowing, does He know what we will do tomorrow? If He knows what we will do tomorrow how can we possibly be free? If we are free how can He be all-knowing?

There is a principle in the contemporary debate on free-will call the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. In order for an agent to be free there must be a minimum of two options available that the agent can choose to perform; one of which must be the option not to perform the action.

Consider this example from Aquinas: Sam is going from his hometown to a new town he has never been to that is some miles away. Sam knows that he must take Hwy A to reach this town, but he is unaware that along the way Hwy A goes off in two different routes (the relevant alternatives) that will converge some miles down the line before going into the new town. Does God know which of the two routes Sam will take? If so, how can Sam be free to take the other route?

Consider this scenario from Harry Frankfurt: Sue goes into a room and sits at a table waiting for Sam to arrive. Unbeknownst to Sue, someone locks the door from the outside leaving her locked inside; the door cannot be unlocked from the inside and there is no other way out of the room. After waiting for Steve for 15 minutes, Sue decides to leave. Is she free to leave the room? Does she have free-will if she cannot leave the room?

So, what does it mean to have free-will and do we have it? This is a difficult question, still being debated, so give these questions some thought but do not be discouraged if you cannot come up with a conclusive answer; it is "the nature of the beast." The history of philosophy is a history of disagreement.

Question: Sue has a family that she supports, but she has lost her job and is out of funds to pay for food. Her children have not have a meal in three days. She steals a loaf of bread and some sandwich meat to feed them. Was she 'free' to steal or not steal. the food or was she 'forced' to steal the food to save her children? Defend your position.