| IIIIITHE1IIIII said: The concept of free will is very basic. When a man is faced by two or more different alternatives, he supposedly has the ability of independently make a decision. This makes us able to tell him that: "You should not have murdered that man. You could have chosen to not murder him, yet you chose to do it." In other words, we are able to accuse him of making the "wrong" decision. To the great masses all of this is- or at least should be something obvious, but to me this makes no sense. Let's begin with going through the basics of how to make a decision. A kid goes to the store and is faced with two options: Buying a Coke for one dollar or some candy for at least 50 cent. On one hand, he can save 50 cent by buying candy, but he is also confident that he would enjoy the Coke more since it's a sunny day. In the end though, he goes for the candy since he want to be able to buy candy tomorrow as well. But did the kid make this decision? No. All he did was acting according to personal preference. Had it been more sunny outside, he would probably have made a different decision, but in this case he would prefer to enjoy candy the next day as well. The decision was already made through previous and current sensory input which shaped his preferences. Thus, selecting the Coke was not an option. This goes for every single decision we make throughout our lives. We search through our past and choose whatever matches our personal preferences the most. We were not ever able to make any decisions independently, because preference is not something you choose. That would be like saying: "Today my favorite colour shall be green." when in reality you know that red will always be your favorite. You can't "choose" otherwise. This is why I don't think it makes any sense to say that the previously mentioned murderer made the "wrong decision". All he did was to act according to personal preference just like everybody else does every single day. We can say that his actions were awful and that actions need to be made so that he won't do something similar again, but we can't blame him for acting according to preference, just like we can't blame anyone for liking whichever sports team he may prefer. To sum it up: Every single decision you make is entirely based on your personal preference, which you can't overlook. Humans will always seek for the greatest possible amount of profit through their actions, and whatever that profit consists of is based on that very same personal preference. |
The underlying argument is flawed. You think because outside factors influence your decision, that you don't have free will. If the exact same factor forces you into making the same decision 100% of the time without variation, maybe that argument can be made. But YOUR mood can effect the decision you make. How you feel at this moment.
A murderer acts according to personal preference - but most people in a similar circumstance would make a better choice. Look at people who grow up in similar circumstances - do they all turn out very similarly? Not always. Some inner city kids work hard in school despite circumstances and make something of themselves... some get into trouble and become dealers. Every decision they make along the way shapes who they are. And yes, maybe a lot of life is easy to predetermine based on outside influences pushing things in certain directions, but your personal preference is your free will. Whether you choose to act on it, or in the best interests of all parties is always your choice.
