Free Will Exists

Let"s take a look at the three arguments Con put up in opposition to free will. 1. The universe is governed by causality. This is such a common fallacy that I made mention of in my opening case. In terms of the physical universe being governed by causality, this seems true. Physical objects based on causality. However, as we Con agreed before beginning this debate, free will is not a physical thing to be governed by the laws of the physical world. Free will is a way of describing human choices and not something that can directly effect by gravity or the like. On the philosophical side, the events which lead up to a person making a choice might be determined, but that does not mean that the choice itself is determined. There may be a cause the forces me to choose between writing this sentence or doing something else, but that cause does not make the choice for me. I still make a choice, even though the need to make a choice is caused. Limitations on free will do not mean that there is no free will. As long as there is some level of choice then free will much exist. The human condition may be partly deterministic, but partly deterministic is still partly free. If people have the ability to make a choice at any level, no matter how limited, then free will dose exist. The example of someone with brain tumor is in fact an excellent example against Con"s case. A person tumor could indeed "facilitate aggressiveness and rage in a patient." That is an issue of emotion, but not of free will. The issue of the will comes with what a person does with those experiences of aggressiveness and rage. The fact that not all people who experience rage and remain unrestrained then "inflict physical harm to other people" helps us see that people do indeed have a choice. People may experience emotions, such as rage, which are beyond their control. Some people then then act violently, while others choose to restrain their rage and not act upon. The ability to feel something and not act on it is one the most important things that most sets people apart from other animals, and it is clear example of free will. 2. "Pick a City" argument. The "pick a city" is really just word play. All reasonable people make assumptions in their speech that do not need to be stated explicitly. For instance, in baseball someone might say, "Throw the ball as fast as possible!" Taken literally, that statement would be a command to throw the ball at 299,792,458 meters per second, the speed of light in a vacuum. [1] However, all reasonable people recognize that is not the intended meaning. The intended meaning of the statement "Throw the ball as fast as possible" is "Throw the ball as fast as you are able to while still maintaining control of where it goes without risking injury to yourself or anyone else." Of course we don"t say that lengthy second sentence because there is no need to. The intended meaning of the statement "Throw the ball as fast as possible" is easily inferred. Similarly, when someone says, "Pick any city you want," they do not mean that in an absolutely literal sense. All reasonable people understand that sentence is, "Of the cities you know of that occur to you at this moment, and for any considered or unconsidered reason, pick any city you want." We don"t say the lengthier second sentence, and there is no need to. The intended meaning of the statement "Pick any city you want" is easily inferred. 3. Experimental evidence against free will. There may well be subconscious intentions before conscious intentions forms. How does this argue against free will? The subconscious is still a part of the person. Subconscious decisions can still be freely made. Also, these experiments are a long way from establishing that subconscious thoughts will always determine that final conscious choice. The idea "it is, in theory, possible to predict, what action a subject will make before the subject has consciously decided to make that action" may be true, but only in theory. There is simply not enough evidence to support the claim in practice. I would also agree that human choices are often predictable, except when they are not. That is the nature of choice. People always act a certain way, except when they don"t. People tend to act in ways that maximize good while minimizing bad, but that does not show the choices they are making are not genuine choices. [1] http://www.science-facts.com...