Do Humans Have The Freewill To Determine

To what extent do Humans have the freewill to determine?  The main idea involved in the movie Next, is the concept of destiny. In summary it  plays the experience of a Las Vegas showroom magician Chris Johnson, who  discovers he has the ability to see a few minutes into the further, we later find that the  power is both a gift and a curse. In relation to the movie Next, the issue this essay  intends to discuss: Does man have the ability to choose his future? Does a supreme  being control human life? These are a few questions that will be referred too through  out the essay. The movie Next challenges the audience to think about the possibility of  being able to determine the future. We see Chris explore the consequences of different  actions before choosing the best one to act upon. The difference between the movie  and reality is that although most humans will analysis a moment before deciding to act  upon it, no one can truly see the consequence of their actions.  Whereas in the movie, Chris Johnson was able to determine his actions of not only of  himself but the people and objects around him. People everyday try to pursue the right  to being free, or at least convince themselves that they are: in the jobs they take, the  decisions they make. The main problem is the fundamental meaning of freedom,  which has never been defined without considering the possible existence of a supreme  being (God). In a way it is human society and human beliefs that limit freedom. Therefore in this essay I am going to discuss, the concept of Destiny, Determinism and  Humanism, Morality and Determinism. This will lead me to conclude that Humans to  some extent have the freewill to determine. The concept of destiny is closely linked to the philosophy of determinism. The main  question associated with destiny is: Do we have control over our lives? It is hard  enough to live under a controlled system in school where obeying rules are day­to­day  obligations. Going against them seems to stimulate a sense of freedom. What if the  intention to be rebellious was just a destined bad action, and not actually an act of  rebellion? Destiny defeats the whole purpose of going against rules. When you think  you are freeing yourself from rules and regulations, you are still under control of  another system you cannot escape from.  In Next, Chris has dreams about the future. To me this stimulated the question: are  dreams humans’ way of being free? For most people being totally controlled by  something only succeeds in dishonest actions. The idea of not being able to have the  freewill to choose eliminates originality. This leads to my next question: does destiny  exist?  It seems possible. All the events that occur in my life are effects of my actions,  actions that I choose. However, my actions were stimulated by another person’s action,  and theirs from something or some else’s. So were did the first decisions start? What  or who was the original? 

Perhaps our actions are destined to happen. For example the phrase ‘what comes  round goes round’ Marx’s idea that objective laws can be used to predict the future, is  possible. Is that destiny? William James also once said ‘Any other future complement  than the one fixed from eternity is impossible’ Then again both philosophers believe  in predestined events.   The free will approach of I and only I am responsible for actions and must be fully accountable to my actions, has encouraged many philosophers including play-writers like Sophocles to promote this theory. For example the story of Oedipus, where he blinds himself as a way of escaping from his destined path, he was certain that by blinding himself it would be his choice and not destiny’s. From what I understand destiny can be considered to be equal to freewill, just something merely hard to rebel against. I agree with the compatilbilists of the world that believe the logical opposite of ‘free’ is not caused but forced. Therefore meaning that free act still exists even if life is predestined, it is just harder to accomplish. Just like Oedipus’ decision to stab his eyes. There are many ways of arguing that humans have pre-ordained lives. How can humans’ lives be pre-destined if someone can end up feeling guilty and wrong after acting upon a situation? For example lying. Perhaps we are pre-destined to do wrong as well as good. Referring to the Philosophy Core theme textbook “a world where everything is completely determined is one in which morality makes little sense.” this sentence suggests that if destiny exists then there is no right or wrong. So why do someone feel guilty? Guilt is stimulated by a wrongdoing. If there is no existence of wrong, then guilt must cease to exist. Determination is there by disproved. Humanism has been defined as a way of life centered on humans. This idea does not propose a determined identity. Although its sub-categories like Christian humanism does follow the idea of God being in control of our lives. However in Pierre Laplace a theist philosopher quotes “ the future only appears undetermined and capable of surprising us because we are ignorant of all causes working within the world.” Humanism expects humans to have some curiosity about freewill rather than simply settling with the theory that a supreme being is in control of them. Laplace explains that humans cannot predict the future and is even less convinced that the future is predicted. If everything were spontaneous then humans cannot predict their futures. I think that a human being’s ignorance to the world is ultimately equal to the ignorance of human beings. We are apart of this world; if we cannot be sure of our world then we cannot be sure of ourselves. It is a vicious cycle of realization. Humanism is the philosophy of reason in pursuit of knowledge; it regards imagination and emotion of the present time, the most useful source to acquire knowledge. In this context, humanism rejects determinism. Morality can also be considered in this discussion. In the scene of Next, Chris replays the possible out comes of various actions in his head, before acting upon them. He searches for the best consequence. Is this morally correct? Surely any act that has been determined by one person and not by the other people involved in the situation

would not be considered fair or moral. Because it means that only one person had the choice to act the way they wanted depending on the consequence best suited for them. The others would not have had the opportunity to do so. This leads to my next question: Does morality limit the freedom to choose? In my opinion, yes it does. If a person wants to take on an action for example theft then morality in this case does or at least should limit the person’s freedom to do wrong. From understanding this case, it has me wonder whether the freedom to choose is such a good thing? Morality does limit freewill because it limits unpleasant events and actions. In a way morality is what keeps humans in control. Therefore in a deterministic world there could not be any morality. If determinism can dictate the any humanistic system, it must to some extent allow social human behaviour. Therefore, in a determinist’s world, a person could have its own opinion of ethics. However, those choices and opinions would be pre-determined, and morality does not help to soften a deterministic regulation. Whether or not determinism is true, morals are essential for the survival of any society. It does seem odd though, that deterministic acts would carry moral responsibility. Morality is a form of personal responsibility. It can be argued that determinism is necessary for morality, since a person cannot foresee results of his/her actions, responsibility would not be taken in for consideration before the action takes place. Most if not all of human actions are unpredictable. In a world of free will, belief in determinism indicates possibilities of unmoral actions. Further-more, in the movie Next, The main character was able to foresee the future, most humans do not have this ability, therefore it is suffice to say that realistically determinism is against the concept of free will. However, it also argues that our decisions as humans are a result of our exposure to our environment (experience). According to Determinists, decisions are nothing more than ideas stimulated by our influences from experience. On the contrary, experiences can be repeated if a person calculates the condition of his life at any time, given the state of his life at a single time. To me that equals freewill; the freedom to think before deciding. However, if life is determined then so are the experiences. If someone can think about a consequence of an action by referring to experiences, then that is allowing the freedom to think. Despite most peoples liking towards the idea of determinism, humans have an existentialist impulse to believe they have free will and responsibility. It seems incorrect to define our actions with out assuming humans have the freedom to act them. How does a community operate if law and everyday regulations were based on the principle that there was no such thing as free will? The case for free will rests on human intuition, which is both the essence of a human and also often misleading. Perhaps freewill is just something we cannot yet prove, just like the idea of God. In my opinion freewill does exist otherwise human philosophy could not be considered to be a subject of irrational thinking.