The Problem of Free Will

Stace argues that the philosopher’s unbelief of the existence of the “Free Will” is something that is based on their false definition of the free will.

Thus, being unable to find something that would be equaled to their definition resulted in their belief in the non-existence of such term. In order to prove his claim about the existence of having free will, he uses several real life examples that showed the difference of actions based on free will from those that are not. He also argues that defining free will as indeterminism, leads to the denial of existence of free will.Thus, Stace offered a definition of free will based on the examples and proofs that that had been laid down. Stace also argued that without free will or if every action were compulsory in nature then there would be no sense in giving penalties for considered wrong deeds and appraisal to good acts since it would be meaningless. The existence of situations that exhibits the use of free will proves the validity of Stace argument regarding the existence of free will.

The examples include situation wherein the person is facing a decision.One example mentioned was Gandhi’s fasting out of his free will and a person fasting because of not having nothing to eat. According to Stace, although both free and not free will have their own causes, the main difference of an action based on free will and those that are not is on the difference between the causes of these actions. Stace thus defines, “acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states of the agent” (p. 53) and “acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent” (p. 53).

If free will is defined in this way, free will certainly exists as Stace asserts.Also, Stance seen that there are still situations wherein this definition of free will cannot be used in cases such robbery where a victim was compelled to give his or her money not out of his free will even though there is no physical contact or force that compelled him or her to do it. Ethical Relativism Ethical relativist asserts that there are many moral codes or law and that there exists no standard or universal law that governs. Different time, place and society dictates a different sets or rules in order to determine which actions can be considered moral from those that are not.

Thus, there may be one particular rule or thought that is regarded as ethical in one period and not for another point in time. In order to know what actions are morally correct in one particular culture and time, one must consider the set of values and morality of the people in the particular place and time for as Stace stated, that what is right in a particular place is the same as what the people in that place thought as right. Thus, there really exists no universal standard for everything is subjective and people’s subjective feeling is the only standard that exists as the relativist asserts.On the other hand for the absolutist, there exists a universal standard, something that the relativist denies. In cases such as cannibalism, absolutist argues that there still a universal standard that exists stating that cannibalism is wrong. Still, the belief of the people that it is morally correct was due to ignorance and not because of the non-existence of a universal standard.

Relativist also questions the validity of a universal standard providing that such standard is present.They argue about the authority to whom that particular standard or law came from since every command or law has its own maker. It also questions the authority that the maker has in making such universal standard. In this matter, absolutist only has faith in a supreme being (God) as evidence, something that no one was able to see.

Thus, the only evidence that can support the absolutist claim depends solely on the existence of a supreme being and since no one was fully able to prove such, the absolutist claim of a universal standard is greatly in question.Thus, we are only left with the relativist ideas. The absolutist’s belief may be sufficient for those who are willing to cherish faith that is without logical or imperative basis however, philosophers tend to be rational and logical in everything and thus, this belief will never do. On the other hand, Stace also offers the weakness of the relativist claims of which one is that the relativist asserts that the only standard that exists is the standard of a particular group or culture and thus, all propositions that attempts to compare one culture morality from another would be meaningless.

But we had been used to comparing different cultures and regarding one as higher or superior to the other when it comes to morality. Still, although we regard the comparisons that we make as something that is worth something, relativist asserts that such comparison should not be made for they are meaningless. Also, making such comparison would mean that there exist a universal standard in which the basis must be made, something that the relativist fully denies. Thus, one standard is applicable only to those who are govern and are under it and not to other cultures.Thus, we cannot say that our culture, its sense of morality, is superior or better than those in the days of our ancestors.

This would also mean there is no such thing as moral progress since no culture would be considered better than the other. Another problem with the relativist theory is about setting the boundaries to which a particular moral code is applicable. Also, since every nation or place has its own set of moral code then that would mean that in order to be morality right you would have to change your values and sense of morality upon going to different places.Another problem arise since there is no basis for comparing the moral values of groups or individuals, everyone can claim that their set of values should then be the basis of morality in their own community. In this case those who have the greater power are likely to impose the standard of morality in that particular area.

This therefore will bring ethical chaos in the community. I agree with Stace regarding the existence of free will however, I still see some disambiguation regarding his provided definition of free will. One argument that I see against Stace assertion regarding free will is that his definition is still confusing.If for instance a parent punished his or her son in order to correct his attitude and eventually, the child changes due to the way the parent discipline him, when the child act base on the punishment (doing what his parent thought him), can that be considered as something that is based on his own free will? It wasn’t his original nature in the first place and thus, although the child may seem to act according to his free will since he is used to doing it even without the presence of his parents, the actions are still caused by an external force although the force is not present in that particular time.Thus, free will is not only affected by physical forces that are external to the agent. There are also some instances when the action of a certain individual is influence by other factors, something that is not external.

This can be seen when the individuals are hesitating to do something although there is no one that is compelling him or her to do a particular action. The reason may be due to the internal matters due to knowledge or norm. In response, I believe that Stace would say that, this case is also an example wherein the definition that he gave, as he (Stace) stated, does not seem to exactly fit such as in the case of a robbery.Thus, the simple definition of knowing if an action is based on free will cannot be used to answer the question at hand.

Regarding his assertions about ethical relativism I would have to argue about Stace’s statement concerning the problems in the relativist theory. According to Stace, as mentioned earlier, one of the problems of relativist’s theory is regarding the setting of boundaries. I believe there is no problem with the establishment of such boundary since there already exists a boundary between different cultures, something that law and the government had made.Thus, being self-right will never be a problem since the division or boundary that had been made does not concern a single individual but rather, a community, a nation. However, Stace may argue that this condition was not brought by relativist and thus, would be of no value in their argument and assertion.

There is also a part on Stace’s argument wherein the need to adapt and change your view and personality upon entering or going to another place was questioned.This however does not make sense since it was also stated that the set of values or code of conduct in a certain place and time only governs those who are part of that culture. This therefore answers his question since the person is not part of the community he or she is travelling then the moral code in that particular place also does not apply to him or her. In this case, Stace might argue that the two given assertions or question are part of two different topics or point that are being given emphasis and thus, each situation should be dealt with differently.