There is an ambiguity between determinism and free will. Determinism can be defined as the predetermined future that results from the inevitable plans of a divine being or powerful natural forces. In this argument, humans are just dominoes in a chain of events, waiting to be knocked into their respective places. If determinism is true, then there is only one possible future. Proponents of determinism claim that free will is an illusion created by humans to satisfy their need to control their own destiny. Proponents of free will define the concept as the ability to make choices that influence the future, when an alternative choice could have been made under the same pre-existing conditions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Chisholm's attempt to clarify this ambiguity revolves around the phenomenon of event causation, in which future events are caused by previous events or states (Lesson 20, Slide 10). The concept of free will does not apply to this situation since the outcome of previous events only results in a possible future. In this scenario, humans may feel that their personal choices have resulted in future events, when in reality the explicit sequence of events has made any alternative choice unfeasible. Divine or natural forces took into account human deliberation in order to predetermine the future. Alternatively, Chisholm also believed in the existence of free choice or agent causation (Lesson 20, slide 11), where the human implicitly causes the choice. There is a fine line between being the cause of the choice and being involved in an event that causes the choice. The difficulty lies in differentiating these two circumstances. If a choice is caused by you, you will likely take responsibility for the repercussions of the decision, whereas an event that involves you and causes similar repercussions will not impact you in the same way. Suppose you eat a banana for lunch. Just as you finish eating, you are distracted by a phone call informing you of a family emergency. You aim for the trash can when you throw the banana peel, but in your haste you miss the trash can and the banana peel lands inches from the trash can. Suddenly, a small child approaches the trash can, trips on the banana peel and falls, injuring himself. You feel bad about this event, but in the back of your mind you realize that it was just an unfortunate accident. On the other hand, let's say you regularly babysit that rickety child and want to teach him a lesson. You intentionally plant the banana peel because you knew the child would head for the trash can after you told him not to. You expected the child to trip and fall, but you didn't expect him to get hurt. You would have a different reaction to this incident. Your choice to harm this disgusting child makes you responsible for his injuries, even if you did not intend for his injuries to be this serious. According to Chisholm, this distinction allows us to escape the argument from mind (Lesson 20, slide 12). . Although the argument from the mind does not support the concept of a predetermined future, it posits that we do not possess the ability to freely make decisions that affect our future. Humans are not fully in control of their choices, as decisions are often influenced by outside factors, from the coin toss of a coin to advicerational. Given the nature of human decision-making, the choices made by individuals do not reflect the concept of free will. According to Chisholm, we can be certain that there is a form of indeterminism fully compatible with free will and moral responsibility ( Lecture 20, slide 11). The problem with this view is that there is no apparent difference between the brain activity of the individual who makes the choice and that of the individual who accepts the sequence of events. . However, there will be a difference in the mentality of these two individuals in the future. Someone who feels in control of their destiny will act differently from someone who believes that their future depends on the whim of a natural or divine force. For example, a person who believes in free will may view their promotion at work as a reward for their choice to work diligently, and they may choose to continue their dedication at work to increase their chances of getting another promotion at work. future. Whereas someone who believes their future is predetermined will likely remain apathetic after promotion. They do not feel the pressure to devote their time and effort to obtaining a future promotion, since subsequent events are already determined. In this scenario, the individual may calmly wait for the future to arrive because they feel they cannot change the predetermined events. Personality and stress levels will therefore be very different between these two individuals. Someone who believes they cannot manipulate their future will blame their failures and attribute their successes to forces beyond their control, but someone who believes in free will may take failures and successes more personally. In other words, they will feel morally responsible for their choices. Although some individuals believe in a divine force that predetermines everything, believers in free will may also invoke religion to support their claim. In the book of Genesis, it was not predetermined that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit and be banished from the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam a conscience and the gift of free will to do as he pleased, and Adam's mistaken choice resulted in this travesty. It can be argued that Adam was influenced by Eve, who was also influenced by the devil in the form of the evil serpent. However, Eve chose to listen to the serpent and furthermore, Adam chose to listen to Eve, which demonstrates his exercise of free will. Furthermore, the presence of guilt and the question of morality characterize the notion of free will. One will feel morally responsible for his erroneous decisions if he believes in free will. For example, a drunk driver who believes in free will probably feels responsible if he hits and kills someone. They believe that their decision to operate a vehicle after being drunk makes them guilty. However, if one believes in predeterminism, he will console his conscience with the fact that the individual died according to divine plans. These divine plans are unalterable and therefore the drunk driver could not have prevented the events from unfolding. In this case, it is believed that the drunk driver was simply involved in the event, but did not cause the event. Proponents of predeterminism would invoke the concept of event causation, which posits that the state of intoxication combined with the consequential consequences of the event. The vehicle maneuvering event caused the intoxicated person to kill someone, but the intoxicated person never had free will to decide their fate. Subsequently, the person who believes in free will may suffer from guilt and post-traumatic stress disorder. These emotions will manifest themselves throughchanges in brain activity that will differentiate this individual from someone who believes in predeterminism. Physically, the added stress induced by the belief in free will can lead to symptoms such as high blood pressure, sweating, and heart palpitations. On the contrary, someone who believes in predeterminism may have fewer qualms. They will accept the predetermined events, and physically, they will remain unchanged following the accident. They will remain comfortable with themselves, as if the tragedy never happened. Even if the differences between the two individuals are not immediately apparent, the mental psyche of these individuals will diverge over time. The difference in mental states will later manifest itself in the form of physiological symptoms. However, Chisholm only considers the short-term consequences for these two individuals and draws short-sighted conclusions from these incomplete observations. Given Chisholm's conclusions, he chooses to avoid discussion of the differences between proponents of free will and proponents of predeterminism. He simply chooses to describe agent causality as a fundamental reality (lecture 20, slide 14). It posits that there is no explanation for the causality of agents; it simply exists (Lesson 20, Slide 14). A shortcoming of this belief is that agent causation only occurs in rational, conscious beings. This does not appear to exist in nature. However, humans are not metaphysically special, so the laws that govern the natural world should apply to us as well. Although most of Chisholm's assertions are accurate, another major weakness in his argument arises from his assertion that the situation in which the person controls the event by making choices of his own accord and the situation in which the person simply chooses to follow the predetermined sequence of events are exactly the same. Metaphysical states may be the same at a specific time frame, but if the long-term implications are examined, the differences will become apparent. To maintain its validity, it is appropriate to add to Chisholm's argument the condition that everything is metaphysically coherent only in the short term. According to Chisholm, an agent is characterized by its capacity to trigger new causal chains that have not been determined by previous events ( Lecture 20, slide 11). For example, the human genome contains genetic code that predetermines human traits. However, if a virus attacks and alters part of the human genome, it can cause serious diseases, including cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. First, the virus changes a single codon on an RNA strand. Since RNA contributes to the process of DNA transcription, a change in RNA is also equivalent to a change in DNA. DNA codes for amino acids, which make proteins and enzymes. Together, proteins and enzymes control how the human body functions. In this scenario, the virus is an agent that triggers a new causal chain. Coming from outside the body, the existence of the virus and its invasion of the human body are not determined by previous events governed by the genetic code. However, viruses are not living creatures acting as conscious, rational agents. The main concern of a virus is its replication. It contains DNA that allows it to replicate and be responsible for its behavior. Another important distinction is that Chisholm believes that choices are influenced by extrinsic factors, making the concept of free will questionable. According to Chisholm, there is a chain.