Freedom Vs Indeterminism

The notion of freedom has been widely discussed throughout time. The debate over freedom consists of people who don't believe it exists in the first place, and those who say that everything we do is free. This essay intends to highlight the major points of this grand debate by first outlining the most basic distinction in freedom, that is positive and negative freedom. From then on, it will discuss the main points of contention between determinism and indeterminism, followed by how and why a balance between the two groups, compatibilism, is the most practical approach. Special emphasis is put on Sartre and Kant, simply to illustrate the argument of each school even further by using their examples.

The articulation of freedom has indeed eluded

This means that human action can be theoretically determined if we know all the events and conditions leading to it (Velasquez, 2002). In other words, the idea of a free will or the option of choice is simply an illusion. The freedom that we think we have is in actually fact ignorance of the laws that govern us. So far, the theory seems pretty logical and is still somewhat arguably palatable. However, the fact that determinists also believe that there is no such things as human responsibility makes it difficult for us to accept. The logic may be adequate in the theory, yet it goes against the human disposition to assign blame. The next step would be to deny regret since the individual had no choice in doing what he did. The theory seems to have put the 'human' out of 'human action', leaving humans as some sort of pawns of destiny. Moreover, our 'actions' might also lack our 'doing something' since they are just results of conditions and events (Solomon, 2002). However, to reject the very premise of the theory would mean accepting the idea that life is just a string of unrelated events. Per contra to determinism, one can support the indeterminist theory. Here we find the complete rejection of determinism, highlighting the fact that not every event has a cause. A point of contention between the two is the denial of "the freedom that we all directly experience when we choose"

This third way is called compatibilism, because it believes that the principle of causality and free will are compatible. Indeed, they are also often termed as Soft Determinists. They defend this compatibility with two main arguments. The first argument states that although our actions are determined by a history of events, we can never know or be aware of all these events that led to this action. It may be true that if we knew everything about the relevant events and conditions we may predict actions with certainty. However, the "if" in the determinist statement will always remain since nobody and in no way possible can they ever obtain all the knowledge required to determine an action. Therefore, although in theory the determinists seem to have the upper hand, in reality they don't. Thus, the empty space left due to lack of information about the previous events is filled with free will, and more importantly, responsibility (Solomon, 2002). The second argument is made by redefining freedom. Soft determinists say that freedom means being able to do what you want, without interference from external factors (Frankfurt, 1969). For instance, if someone is locked in a cell, then he is not free. But if he is able to do what he wants then it is said that he is free. In other words, one is free because his actions are