Free-Will Vs Determinism

I do not think there is a paradox in philosophy that has created more headaches than the debate between free will and determinism. This is rightly so, as determinism with its hardline stance of everything having a causal relationship and Libertarianism with the idea of somehow we are freed from the physical laws that determine all aspects of the physical world besides our actions. It seems that there must be a middle ground between the ambiguity of moral accountability inherent to determinism, or disregard needed of the well-established laws of nature that the libertarian’s perspective requires to justify its claim of absolute moral accountability. Thankfully Hume came along with the idea of soft determinism (compatibilism), this argument addresses

Meaning we are the ones in control of the outcome, we have the autonomy to do or not to something. It starts to become more complex when you look into why humans are gifted with such sovereignty; if everything in nature seems bound to laws of natural sciences, what sort of special soul serum do humans have that allows us to be different? Descartes account (which comes from a theological perspective) states that we are made in the likeness of god but we are not perfect. In the imperfection is where Hume derives his belief in the existence of free will. It boils down to "that the source of human error must be the will, but Descartes does think that this is so. Since the will or freedom of choice was given to him by God, Descartes believes it to be sufficiently extensive and perfect” (Renee) Descartes formed this argument in a time where the understanding of the natural world was limited. Thus the majority of his reasoning was centered around the word of God. By using Descartes logical framework, it would be easy to derive that God had instilled free will to the extent where it allows one to be accountable for their actions. In the more modern times we hit a paradigm shift in the perception of the world and the physical laws that govern

He recognizes that we are different from the tree falling in the woods, or the lion hunting a water buffalo, we are cognizant humans and thus have "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will." He also goes on to explain that it is a good thing that our world is causal, it is what he believes accounts for moral responsibility. Hume argues that non-causal world could not have any moral accountability. For instance, if the agent accountable for the action no longer persisted once the action had been done; how could the agent be accountable. I do not believe that Hume necessarily accounts for the strict nature of hard determinism but he gives a reasonable account for one to have an obligation to be a good individual. As our action remains with use they make use the agent of our future actions. Leading an individual to live as ethically as possible other wise the casuals chain of events will lead to unsatisfactory