To believe in free will is not to say that human behavior is random or uncaused. It simply means that, to some extent, people have control over their actions. In addition to other factors, external and internal, people have the freedom to choose what actions they will take. The mere fact that man is aware of cause and effect indicates that he in some way takes part in the process. Is man merely a pawn in the world of cause and effect? If so, then what is the purpose of man's ability to reason and calculate outcomes in his mind when he cannot act on his own reasoning, but is forced to follow some predetermined path?

From a determinist point of view, if certain causes lead to certain result

Often, the Free Will vs. Determinism debate arises in discussions of religion. Christians, for instance, believe that all things are created by one omniscient, omnipotent being-God. Regarding this issue, a determinist would claim that if God made man and all other things, including those which contribute to man's decisions and actions, then He has predetermined those decisions and actions.

Another topic, which addresses Determinism vs. Free Will, is morality. According to the determinist view, a person's actions are completely predetermined. This means that people are not responsible for their actions, nor can they be judged according to their actions. Yet, social and governmental structures all over the world practice punishment for those who act outside the moral or criminal code. How can society blame or praise a person for an action which he himself had no control over? It is inconsistent to say that a person is not responsible for his bad deed and then punish him for that deed. It seems that even those who deny the existence of free will still live their lives as if it does exist (Questions that Matter 422). They ponder over decisions, as if they actually have a choice in what actions they will take; they punish their child for bad behavior, as if the child is responsible; they regret making certain choices, as if it could be any other way. The famous philosopher, William James, comments on this topic in his essay, "The Dilemma of Determinism" which states that regret would be impossible in a deterministic world (Questions that Matter 417). He goes on to say that regret is an absurdity in a world where sin does not exist. If a man is not responsible for his actions, why is he able to feel regret, shame or pride? How does the determinist explain this? It is at this point that determinism splits into two positions-hard and soft. The hard determinist can only defend this by claiming that, regardless of whether or not a person is responsible for his actions, the actions themselves can still be judged as good or bad and must be addressed accordingly (Questions that Matter 418). A murderer, for example, must be imprisoned in order to prevent him from harming others. It seems that this explanation is only a way of avoiding the real issue; in regards to morality, the deterministic view is a hypocritical one.

The soft determinist, on the other hand, asse

Some topics in this essay:
Questions Matter, Theory Evolution, , Human Understanding, questions matter, Dilemma Determinism, William James, free vs determinism, David Humes, cause effect, human behavior, determinist view, vs determinism, free vs, responsible actions, Philosophical Explanations, questions matter 418, one's character, live lives, existence free, questions matter 420, vs determinism debate,