PHI2010 Argumentative Essay 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay...

Description

Argumentative Essay 3.4 PHI 2010 Justin Egatz Argumentative Essay #2 Word Count: 1048

1 Introduction: The question “does anyone act of their own free will” is heavily debated among philosophers. Philosopher Baron D’Holbach argues very strongly that humanity does not have free will, which he expresses in chapter 11 of The System of Nature entitled “Of the System of Man’s Free Agency.” One of D’Holbach’s arguments for the claim that no human ever acts of his/her own free will, and the one for which I will be arguing that it fails, is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A person's actions are determined by his/her motives. A person's motives are determined by things outside of his/her control. Thus, a person’s actions are determined by things outside of his/her control. (1, 2) If a person's actions are determined by things outside his/her control, then they are not free. 5. Therefore, whatever a person does is not free. (3, 4) I will be structuring my argument by examining each premise and explaining that the premise is either false or that we cannot be confident that it is true (i.e., 2.1 Premise One), followed by which I will provide an example regarding how one may rebut my argument for each premise (i.e., 2.2 Premise One).

2.1 Premise One The first premise, “a person's actions are determined by his/her motives,” is one that is simply false in that not every action has a motive, thus it is not possible to say that “a person’s actions are determined by things outside of his/her control” if that person’s action does not have a motive. If one is choosing between indifferent options, that is, choosing between two things that are exactly the same, then there would be no motive to determine that decision. For example, you have to choose between wearing a green tee-shirt made by the same company or another green tee-shirt also made by the same company. It does not matter which one is chosen, thus there is no motive behind choosing one over the other. As a result, this situation demonstrates that a person's actions are not determined by his or her motives, rendering the third premise of the argument false because the first premise has also been determined to be false. Further, because the third premise is not true, the conclusion is no longer true, rendering D’Holbach’s argument regarding free will invalid.

2.2 Premise One One may argue that even when choosing between indifferent options a person’s actions are determined by motivation. D’Holbach himself argues that “the very desire of displaying [a] quality, excited by the dispute, becomes a necessary motive, which decides his will either for the one or the other of these actions" (4-5). Essentially, D’Holbach is saying that even if one is encountered with a scenario where the options are completely the same, taking the action period requires motivation, regardless if the options are the same. For example, even if one has to choose between two of the same thing, that person has to be motivated to make a decision to choose either, demonstrating that a person's actions are, in fact, determined by his/her motives.

3.1 Premise Two The second premise, “a person's motives are determined by things outside of his/her control,” hypothetically assuming that the first premise is true, is one that we simply cannot be confident to be true in that it is not obvious if one’s motives are determined by things outside of his or her control, thus it is not possible to say that “a person’s actions are determined by things outside of his/her control” on the grounds that there are situations where a person's motives are not determined by things outside of his/her control. For example, one forgets to do the laundry and one of the clothing articles that was not washed was an infamous green tee-shirt. Conveniently, that person has two of the exact same green tee-shirts: one that was dirty and one that was clean. When deciding to choose which green tee-shirt to wear, the person is motivated to choose the clean green tee-shirt over the dirty one. In this case, the person's motive was determined by something that was within his/her control, demonstrating that a person's motives are not determined by things outside of his/her control, rendering the third premise of the argument false because the second premise has also been determined to be false. Further, because the third premise is not true, the conclusion is no longer true, rendering D’Holbach’s argument regarding free will invalid.

3.2 Premise Two One may argue that even when a person's motives are not determined by things outside of his/her control they actually are, depending upon the situation surrounding the motive. Let us take the dirty green tee-shirt example, for instance. One may argue that even though the dirty shirt was caused from something that person controlled, one could argue even further that even though that motive was determined by something the person controlled, that person could not control whether that particular green-tee shirt was manufactured to be purchased, thus the person’s motive to wear another green tee-shirt could not even be determined in the first place if that shirt was never made, and the fact that the shirt was made is out of that person’s control.

4 Conclusion Upon final review of the argument at hand, I have illustrated that the first premise, “a person's actions are determined by his/her motives,” and the second premise, “a person's motives are determined by things outside of his/her control,” are either false or one cannot be confident that they are true. Thus, considering the claims regarding the first two premises, one can conclude that a person's actions are not determined by his or her motives and that a person's motives are not determined by things outside of his/her control, rendering the third premise of the argument false because both the first and second premises have also been determined to be false. Further, because the third premise is not true, the fourth premise, “if a person's actions are determined by things outside his/her control, then they are not free,” is not true, rendering the conclusion, “whatever a person does is not free” no longer true, which renders D’Holbach’s argument regarding free will invalid. In summation, D’Holbach’s argument fails to demonstrate that no human ever acts of his/her own free will....