Bio-Environmental determinism is compatible with free will.

1. "One cannot choose anything, if there were no other choices." Choices are in the eye of the chooser. It is expressly conceded by the viewpoint of Bio-Environmental determinism that an individual has multiple choices for each action. (X may kill Y or X may not kill Y) What is questionable about the theory in relation to free will is that, according to the doctrine, the individual will only choose one. (X will not kill Y because, as X sees it, the disadvantages (such as legal punishment/moral repercussions) outweigh the benefits) 2. "A determined decision cannot be called an actual choice because ... he really isn't [deciding] because the choice has already been made long before his time." A "determined" decision, according to a part of bio-environmental determinism, biological determinism, is determined by the mind of the individual, that is, the individual is, with the exclusion of the present environment, the most direct link to his actions. That all decisions were made "long before his time" is true about other branches of determinism, but only indirectly so for Bio-Environmental determinism. The individual directly chooses the choice that he will make. The only limit on the individual is himself; he will only choose what he is willing to choose, that is, if X, as X sees it, the disadvantages and/or moral repercussions of the action outweigh the benefits, he will not kill Y. 3. "...the individual making the "determined decision" has only [some] control over this." That the individual making the decision only has "some control" is dictated by environmental determinism, which states that one's environment limits the possible choices one can make. (For example, X can not shoot Y because he does not have a gun. If X kills Y he will have to use what tools are available to him.) 4. "I also disagree that moral responsibility should be left for another debate, seeing as though my main problem with compatibilism is that of moral responsibility." A. "1.We have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility) only if we are the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices. 2.If determinism is true, then everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control. 3.If everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control, then we are not the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices. 4.Therefore, if determinism is true, we are not the ultimate sources of our choices. 5.Therefore, if determinism is true, we don't have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility)." In this argument, my opponent argues "if no free will then no moral responsibility". This argument posted by my opponent suggests that no free will yields no moral responsibility, not the converse. If I invalidated every claim regarding morality made by my opponent, this logic would still stand and would still prove its point. B. "Determinism, if true, leaves out the possibility of other choices." See argument 1 5. "your logic is incoherent," I concede that my chain of logic from prior arguments had missing statements, all of which were implied but not expressed or could be constructed from previous statements. "1. We have free will if and only if we are the most direct sources of our choices, with the reasonable exclusion of immediate external factors [The immediate environment should be excluded from the definition of free will because there are obviously factors that would affect our physical ability to make a decision]. 2. What influences us to make one choice is less direct than our making of the choice [as dictated by determinism] 3. We are the most direct link to our decision, with the exclusion of the decision itself [(the immediate environment)], therefore, 4. We have free will." So, I have rephrased the argument as: 1. The definition of free will is that we are the most direct sources of our choices, with the exception of our immediate environment. 2. Bio-Environmental determinism states that the immediate environment and the party making the decision are the most direct causes of an action's outcome. 3. Considering the definition of "free will," if the most direct sources of the outcome of an action are the immediate environment and the party making the decision then we have free will. 4. Under Bio-Environmental determinism, we have free will. 6. "Rationality is not supplementary to determinism, because under determinism we are unrational. We cant make any rational choices in life if determinism is true. Every action we do is already determined, so "thinking rationally" is not even logical. It isn't even logical to rationally think about whether or not determinism is true or false, because our decisions will be made by our previous causes and are already determined. If all our actions are determined, we are left with no rationality, no moral responsibility, and most importantly, no free will." Rationality is supplementary to biological determinism, one of the two fundamental components of bio-environmental determinism. Again, biological determinism expressly states that a choice is based on the rational analysis of the party making the decision. 7. 1) If determinism were true, then we can't be held morally responsible for our actions. See argument 4. 8. 3) Determinism is not true This conclusion is not the subject of the debate. 9. My opponent has failed to address the following: __________________________________________________________________________________ I have supported my position to the best of my ability. My opponent has debated with arguments that would hold true for a debate concerning determinism in general, but he has used many arguments that are inaccurate for bio-environmental determinism, including many that imply ideas of theological determinism. I encourage voters to research bio-environmental determinism before voting.