The subject of freedom versus determinism has sparked much controversy within the philosophical world, as many have split opinions on the matter, which pries open the issue of whether humans have free will or rather our actions are determined by causality.

Determinism is a philosophical view that each action and event that occurs has a preceding cause, which decides the eventual outcome of said action. Additionally these events are regarded as external from human will; hence humans do not have any control over these actions, as they were merely predetermined without a humans mind influencing these actions to any degree. (Shier David 2004 P20-22) To apply determinism to a real life scenario may be turning the tap in a sink but having no water leave the faucet. Of course there is a logical reason to why water isn’t coming out, rather than being an anomaly, as is it more likely that an event transpired before the tap was used in order to cause the problem at present. (Opie 2009 pp.2) Hence, determinism is observed through this scenario as the event was predetermined by previous actions that occurred prior. This leads into the thesis of determinism, which states, “the way things were in the past settles how and will be in the future”. (Opie 2009 pp.2)

This thesis implies free will is non-existent, and that humans have no control over their own actions, which clashes with the thesis of free will, as “human beings are capable of making choices from a range of alternatives” (Opie 2009 pp.4-5), for example, where to sit or when to eat dinner. Because these two theses are incompatible it results in a philosophical paradox, as both theses can’t be true or false in any instance. (Opie 2009 pp.5) To suggest that humans have ultimately no control over their actions is to declare that no human is responsible or should be held account for their actions, (Informationphilospher.com 2007) as former causes inevitably determine the effect rather than one’s own will, which from an ethical standpoint raises various morale issues, as theoretically one could claim that they shouldn’t be accused for a crime as the event was predetermined prior and they had no power over it.

So it begs to question how people perceive this and in what way they respond to the dilemma. Now as the two theses contradict each other, a logical standpoint is to dismiss either as incompatible, which classifies as incompatibilism. (Taylor Richard 1983 P45-46) Albeit this isn’t as simple as it sounds, as to dismiss either thesis is to either reject determinism and accept that not all human actions are as a result of predetermined, or reject freedom and agree that free will is simply false and does not exist. (Opie 2009 pp.3) Building upon incompatibilism, more specifically, there are certain incompatibilists that identify as Libertarians who deny the thesis of determinism and favour free will, as some human behaviour is the result of free choice that might be subject to influence by preceding events. (Shier David 2004 P20-22) This solution in regard to freedom and determinism seems morally sound in the respect that humans have free will and therefore are responsible for their actions and the events that transpire as a result.

To conclude, determinism and freedom cannot coexist as the two theses contradict each other and are as a result incompatible. To agree with either is to dismiss the other, which brings further dilemmas into question of whether or not humans have free will.