Modern philosophers have many explanations for and against free will. In The Adjustment Bureau, “The Chairman” acts as a god, dictating the past, present, and future. Philosophers would classify this as top-down hard determinism. Because a supreme being has dictated our entire existence, there is no free will whatsoever. This viewpoint is dependent on the existence of a supreme being that is outside our own physical and tangible world; no such being has been proven, therefore top-down determinism cannot be substantiated. From a scientific standpoint, the theory of bottom-up determinism may be the perfect refutation of free will. Our DNA, which has been given to us since birth, has dictated our entire lives for us. If we had sufficient data and technology, we would be able to discover our exact actions at any given point in our lives. Hard determinists believe that for a certain event X, there are antecedent causes that ensure the occurrence of event X; therefore, no action is free since action X must occur.
Many, however, find the complete absence of free will hard to accept. Philosophers, therefore, have come up with a solution that allows determinism and free will to coexist. Termed soft-determinism, it accepts the Thesis of Determinism as well as the idea that “my behavior is caused… by my own inner choices, desires, and volitions.” Hard determinists believe that the word “cause” is equated with “forced” or “compelled”. However, soft determinists cast this aside, deeming it a mistake. According to soft determinists, all actions are caused somehow, but not every action is forced. Therefore, there can be a coexistence of determinism and free will.
In my opinion, the anteceding causes leading up to an event X is not a product of a biological or other-worldly force. Instead, the causes are defined by temperament, also known as heredity, or training, known as environment. Since birth, our natural instincts and our environment have influenced the way we think and perceive the world. For example, our lives can be exemplified by a piece of exposed camera film. Captured on this roll of film are our basal instincts, given to us at birth. When it comes time to develop, this roll of film can be developed well or poorly, depending on its environment. The final resultant, a picture, is representative of our choice. Based off of our heredity and our environment, our choices are directed one way or another. As long as we are free to act according to our choices rather than an external force, proponents of soft determinism deem this as free will. Obviously, if an action is forced, there is an absence of free will. Giving money to a robber, for instance, is not an act of free will if the alternative is death. However, the distinction between soft and hard determinists can be exemplified by the donation of money to the needy. Hard determinists state that one was predetermined to donate. On the other hand, soft determinists state that the person has a choice to donate or not. This choice can be influenced by experiences in the past, or our environment. The manner in which we arrived to the choice does not matter; it is the presence of the free choice itself that separates the hard and soft determinists. In essence, the soft determinist states, “Acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent. Acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent.”
In the end, questioning the existence of free will is not relevant. Even in its absence, our lives continue as though we intrinsically have control over our individual decisions. Looking from the inside out, we find that our every thought and action is built on the assumption of free will. Whether top-down, bottom-up, or soft determinism prevails does not matter; we must still live our lives under the assumption of free will.
Bibliography
Blatchford, Robert. “The Delusion of Free Will” Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives
on Perennial Issues. Ed. Klemke, E.D., A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. 112-117.
Klemke, E.D., A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger. Philosophy: Contemporary
on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. 107-111.
Snell, Marilyn Berlin. “Do you have Free Will?.” California. March-April 2009: 34-37.
Stace, W.T. “The Problem of Free Will” Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives on
Perennial Issues. Ed. Klemke, E.D., A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. 125-134.
Taylor, Richard. “Freedom and Determinism” Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives
on Perennial Issues. Ed. Klemke, E.D., A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. 125-134.
The Adjustment Bureau. Dir. George Nolfi. Perf. Matt Damon, Emily Blunt. Universal
Sutiods, 2010.
The Adjustment Bureau. Dir. George Nolfi. Perf. Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, Jean Slattery, Michael Kelly and Terrence Stamp. Universal Studios, 2010. DVD.
Klemke, A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994) 108.
Richard Taylor, Freedom and Determinism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994) 127.
Robert Blatchford, The Delusion of Free Will (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994) 113.
W.T. Stace, The Problem of Free Will (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994) 123.
Marilyn Berlin Snell, “Do you have Free Will?” (California, March-April 2008)37.
