Houston Community College System Do We Have Free Will Essay Paper Instructions For those of you who are unfamiliar with how to write a research paper, this

Houston Community College System Do We Have Free Will Essay Paper Instructions
For those of you who are unfamiliar with how to write a research paper, this detailed guide is for you. For those of you who think you are already experts, read this anyway because it explains exactly what I expect and how I will grade you. Here are the steps you should follow.
Read the Goal of the Paper below.
Before you write your paper, read the Chicago Style Guide and Grading Rubric.
Before you begin writing your paper, read Writing a Paper and Paper Structure & Outline below.

TOPIC ON THE RESEARCH PAPER: METHAETICS

Do we have free-will?
General
O’Connor, Timothy, “Free Will”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Timpe, Kevin. “Free Will.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/.
McClusky, Colleen. “Medieval Theories of Free Will.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/freewi-m/.

THE PAPER HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MODIFY AND CORRECT AND VERIFY WITH THE GRADING CRITERIA IF EVERYTHING IS THERE AND WRITE 1 PAGE TO ADD TO IT SINCE IT SUPPOSED TO BE 7 PAGES, BECAUSE THE PAPER IS NOT LONG ENOUGH AND ALSO PUT THIS PAPER IN CHICAGO STYLE. 1
Do we have free-will?
There are many debates on the concept of free will by many philosophers. In the struggle
to reveal reality, there are more questions that have risen than answers. Therefore, free will is more
complicated and especially its application to moral responsibility. Is it a right for humans to have
free will? Is it necessary for people to take responsibility for their moral activities? the model of
compatibility tries to address these questions. It does this by creating a link between the
determination of the will of human beings and consequently offering a free choice of engaging
inactions of their decisions. Additional models like hard determinism and libertarianism fail to
give a clear explanation of free will or disregards the aforementioned link between determinism
and free choice. It is possible to give a proof on the responsibility of human beings on their actions
using the compatibilist perspective.
The foundation of the compatibilist model of free will reconcile with causal determinism.
Understanding these reconciliations, it is significant to understand determinism because it will
assist in understanding various determinism. Philosophically, determinism is a theory that
maintains that every action in the universe result forms a past cause. Justification of determinism
is therefore only possible through governing everything on earth by causal laws especially the laws
of nature. If an individual wants to know all the laws that govern nature, and all the data concerning
the metaphysics of the universe in the past, it would be possible to determine all the activities.
Such knowledge on the determination result from connecting the causal links between the two.
This paper offers a counter-argument that is put forward to determine the option of human beings
to have free will.
2
Determinism does not give the connection between determinism and free will of an
individual who engages in action. This, therefore, raises a question about the most appropriate
manner through which people can become morally responsible for their activities especially when
their actions are determined. Conservative determinists would argue that people should not take
responsibility for their moral actions because of the lack of a link to free will. If a man has no
choice to select his actions, then such an individual should not take responsibility for such
activities. From the hard belief of determinists, this is a simple conclusion to make (Mckenna).
However, there are more opinions than try to justify whether free will connects with compatibilist
ideas that offer proof to the link.
Stance in his idea supports compatibilism through offering a practical opinion of moral
responsiveness and states the existing verbal disagreement between compatibilism and
conservative determinists. His explanation begins with the fact that morality and the perception of
the society towards it relies on the free will. A practical sensible question on this opinion could be:
What is the best way that society can use to punish everyone for their immoral actions? Individual
moral responsibility from the daily principle way of judging people’s actions. Under such
judgement condition, it is rational to conclude that there is no free will. The primary discrepancy
purpose is the misunderstanding of the meaning of the free will. The reason for arguing against
the existence of free will and determinism is solely expressible. Hard determinist maintains that
the determination of a person’s action is determined the cause. It also results from the verbal
disagreement. According to stance, a word should have the right definition that agrees with the
common usage. For instance, it will not be correct to define a man as a five-legged creature.
Therefore, it is important to identify the uses of the phrase
3
Harry Frankfurt also has a personal theory on why people possess free will. His definition
correlates with the concept of a person. His definition of free will differs with that of the
determinists and contrast with the freedom of action. First, he argues that humans are can reflect
on their personal desires therefore they are more complex than animals. Therefore, the definition
of an individual therefore based on the ability of a person to flow the desires in a way that offers a
chance for selecting the right motivation to perform. Humans, therefore, has a distinct attribute of
choice that makes them unique among the creatures. Frankfurt subdivides free will into two orders.
These include first and second. The first subdivision entails the free choice that an individual has
to engage in an action of choice. The second-order entails the choice to avoid any activity that goes
against the will. Furthermore, there is a distinction between various types of orders of will that fall
under the second category. For instance, the desire of an individual to eat and the first order to be
fat is not present. Therefore, the action cannot happen. Humans are therefore free to make their
choices that suit their own desires.
Free will is grounded on the laws of nature. The possibility of holding the laws of nature
to be constant justify the reason to make people have free will. However, in many cases when
people are allowed to go by their own desires, they end up messing and engaging in activities that
some times affect others. Many people who claim that they follow their own will end up messing
up. They justify their actions by giving claims that everyone has the freedom to chose what to do
and when to do it. Most of the violent activities that are experienced in the present era result form
the people’s claim of free will. People do not care about the impact of their activities and end up
affecting others in various ways. They are no longer concern about causal activities that result from
the people’s freedom of following their desires. Free will is, therefore, a choice that people are
presently practising.
4
A proof of moral responsibility is also another evidence of the existence of the free will.
The direct and simple explanations that are given by Michael Levin about free will justify the
necessity of free will. His definition of freedom is the ability of an individual to do the activity of
choice at any time. From this definition, it is irrelevant to identify the origin of choice to be from
the past experience of influence of emotions. The common sense of free will is compatible with
moral responsibility because people engage inactions of their choice as a result of the control of
their desires that comes for emotional influence. When free will is looked at from this perspective,
it can assist in solving the challenge of moral responsibility and gives a way forward on its
relationship with free will. Sometimes it is important to restrict the people’s actions that can lead
to effects. It is significant to emphasize the theory of moral responsibility to ensure that there is no
tress pass among individuals.
There is a link between the theory of moral responsibility because of the common sense
that a free action of an individual implies a moral responsibility for their personal actions. In an
attempt to disapprove this moral responsibility, it is rational to say that accounting for free will
does not provide detailed information on how it should be applicable to the society members.
Various conflicts on how to handle free will is an issue which makes sense because it can help
people to avoid some activities that can infringe into other people’s welfare. There is a need to
ensure that everyone makes a choice that cannot affect the other party. These people need to
identify the right way through which they can handle different situations that require making
choices. Allowing them to do whatever they need can lead to conflict among the people. Free will
should, therefore, allow to only offer an individual with freedom of doing activities that cannot
affect others. Possessing free will should therefore exist but with a limit.
5
The theory of moral responsibility connects with free will to justify the argument against
its existence. People maintain that moral responsibility comes with the ability of an individual to
uses senses. Therefore, when a person is left to act freely, they can be able to make a decision on
doing things that are not offensive. Therefore, there is a compatible connection between free will
in different ways of perspectives. The conservative determinism gives a verbal disagreement that
free will can disrupt the normal actions of individuals. Regardless of the explanations of different
approaches, the free will should maintain among the people to make them enjoy the freedom of
individual responsibility. There is no need of putting limitations on how people can practice their
desires. Free will is, therefore, the only option that people can utilize to enjoy their freedom of
choice.
In summary, if, many people argue against free will, it is significant to recognize the need
for giving people an opportunity to act according to their choices. Different theorists may argue
against free will which sometimes can lead to effects on emotions hence resulting in conflict. Moral
responsibility is only possible to practice when people make individual choices without forcing
them. people, therefore, have a free will to d al the actions of their desires.
6
Bibliography
Frankfurt, Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Introduction to
Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. By Louis P. Pojman. New York:
Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Levin, Michael. “A Compatibilist Defense of Moral Responsibility.” Introduction to Philosophy:
Classical and Contemporary Readings. By Louis P. Pojman. New York: Oxford UP,
2008. Print.
Mcclure, Max. “Compatibilism: Can Free Will and Determinism Co-exist?” Stanford News.
Web. 19 Apr. 2012. .

Purchase answer to see full
attachment