Man in Shackles - Free-Will and Determinism

As we navigate the labyrinth of existence we are either the masters of our own destiny, or we are unwittingly pulled by the invisible threads of cosmic puppetry. The stimulus depicts a man imprisoned within an iron cage, visibly desperate for release; this immediately connotes the idea of freedom, or rather a lack of, which recalls the philosophical issue of free will and determinism that questions if man truly possesses agency or is imprisoned in a calculated path laid out for them from the prelude of existence. This raises the conundrum of whether or not man is truly free, and by extension the two different approaches that seek to answer to what it means to be human is firstly the stance that humans possess total free will, and secondly the argument that every action of theirs is determined. The former and the latter are supported through the ideas of existentialism and determinism respectively and this essay will argue that it is fatalism/determinism that governs man’s pathway through existence showing that what it means to be human is to be a chained captive to fate. This is a crucial issue as it has chilling implications for the way society is governed and core principles such as justice because how can we justify societal protocol such as court imposed punishment if crimes are not acts of free will, but rather determined hence robbing the perpetrator of any kind of autonomy. 

The preliminary vantage point is that humans are defined by their ability to possess free will. Jean - Paul Satre uses existentialism to assert that humans are “condemned to be free” emphasising the burden of choice. He supports this statement with the idea that “existence precedes essence” meaning individuals exist first, and through their choices and actions, they define their essence or identity. As a result, individuals are not bound by a predetermined purpose or nature; instead, they are free to define themselves through their own choices and actions. With no predetermined essence to influence choice or behaviour, one possesses ultimate free will  and thus total responsibility for actions. Whilst this is an appealing argument, I disagree with this characterisation. I can appreciate the idea that we are not completely bound by a predetermined nature so we often possess choice, but I do not believe that firstly we always possess a choice and secondly that we always possess free choice, as often our actions are a forced result of a   culmination of social and environmentally determined factors. The impact of societal conditions upon human behaviour is incredibly significant. Growing up in impoverished areas for example can often determine or heavily influence human behaviour seen in the argument that crime is a product of poverty or that a lack of education limits social mobility, hence removing both choice and free choice respectively from the narrative of a struggling citizen as resorting to practices such as crime may be more out of necessity of survival than a choice made by free will. Further, your environment significantly influences your belief and value systems thus heavily influencing and often determining your behaviour. For example, the family one is born into will possess its own attitudes, beliefs and approaches to life based on the parents’ or grandparents’ past experiences which creates often a binary thought principle or environment for an infant growing up as these ideas are in turn transferred or instilled within them. Hence even though they might be able to make choices as they grow up, total freedom in choice is impossible to ascertain as it lacks objectivity. This same principle applies to friendships as well. 

The alternate perspective is that what it means to be human is to be enslaved to fate or predetermined paths set out for us. Hard determinism denies the existence of free will, arguing that individuals do not have the power to make choices independent of antecedent causes. Human actions, according to this view, are predetermined by factors beyond an individual's control, and every event is the inevitable result of prior factors. This idea is extremely compelling to me as it offers a clear and logically consistent position. Every event has a cause (we are the product of our parents and their parents before them and there were thousands of causes and effects that led to said parents meeting in the first place). These causes trace back to the initial conditions of the universe and if the universe is entirely governed by cause and effect, then there is no room for contingency and therefore no basis for free will. However the major flaw of this idea is that it does not account for how we make decisions in everyday life. It seems impossible to claim that we do not have free will when every day we seemingly make decisions without coercion. Indeed soft determinism suggests that even though our actions are determined by various factors, individuals can still be considered to possess free will as long as they are not coerced or constrained in a way that prevents them from acting according to their own desires and intentions. As Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." meaning although the nature of a motive is determined,  an agent has free will to act according to a motive. This idea is also compelling as determinism is more likely to influence events and motivation (due to the clear cause and effect chain)  rather than the way in which people think and respond to scenarios to which there is a certain degree of unpredictability given the individual situation, regardless of upbringing or social influence. However the main point of refutation to this is that if free will can only exist in a state whereby people are not coerced or constrained in a way that prevents them from acting according to their own desires and intentions - is this standard even attainable? I do not think so. Every decision that we make is influenced by external factors and hence is never completely free : one’s “choice” to work in high paying jobs is often not because the individual is intrigued by the profession but because it will provide them with more disposable income and a better lifestyle hence aligning with their determined motivations. The supposed “free will” we have to complete tasks or homework cannot exist because we complete these in order to perform well in the subject and to appease teachers or bosses to prevent punishment hence acting on our determined motivation for success  Even the choice to eat salads over processed food is with the determined motivation for wanting to be healthy and fit over the taste of quality of the food. Even if one “chooses” the option that they wanted the most and are happy with the outcome that is nothing more than a fortunate coincidence because regardless whatever they “choose” is a result of their individual motivations which cannot be willed and are products of social, environmental and genetic determinism. 

Consequently, I incline to the hard determinist and incompatibilist approach. At the most basic level we cannot choose where and which family we are born into. This environment and the people who raise you are the first determiners of the values and beliefs you develop which then become a permanent cause and effect chain of events that the individual pursues. Hence we have no control over the events that are to occur in our lives and we live under the illusion that we possess choice when said “choice” is not even free at all. Hence as it pertains to the stimulus -  being imprisoned within a permanent set of cause and effect chains that have existed centuries before we were even born and at the dawn of the universe itself is what it means to be human, and the idea of “free will” is nothing more than an unfortunate, misleading deceit.