This is my philosophy essay on free will, it is here mainly because my uni server is shit and I can't find my flash drive, so if I need to print it off tomorrow, I can. Feel free to comment though.

It has long been stipulated, mainly through religious texts such as The Bible, that human beings possess free will, being born with the ability to choose their actions and consequences as they see fit. However, being able to make a choice does not necessarily denounce free will, as the environment the individual is in will always influence the decision, which presents a case for determinism. Similarly an individual’s cultural upbringing will also determine their choices. As such, while humans are free to make choices in their lives, they do not possess true free will as each choice is merely a product of the individual’s upbringing.

To accept that an individual has no choice in a matter, and that his actions can be predicted from the environment around him, is to believe in hard determinism and to exclude any possibility of having free will. This line of thought however poses a problem as it would mean that every ethical theory would become null and void and that our emotions are just creations born out of our own ignorance and it doesn’t really matter how we react to any situation as the way in which we react has already been predetermined. When looking at nature, it is not hard to believe that determinism is present, as science has shown that most of the physical world obeys completely deterministic laws, and as such it is not unfeasible to believe that human beings are not in possession of free will. Just as every action has a reaction in physics, every action within an individual’s environment will influence him.

In the Middle East men are given as much ‘free will’ as they like, however the women receive substantially less privileges. From a Western viewpoint, the women are severely marginalised, and their free will is compromised by the patriarchy. However, within the Middle Eastern society, it is the cultural norm for women to be treated differently, and in some cases, the law. As women are raised to accept how they are treated, they do not recognise that it is wrong; instead they see it as being completely normal. Similarly, the men in these environments do not see their actions as being wrong, rather that if they were to not act, they would be doing wrong. With recent Western involvement in the Middle East, Western people are informing the Middle Eastern people that their treatment of women is wrong and that they should not do it. Upon hearing this, Middle Eastern people are able to decide whether they want to continue marginalising women, as they now have heard both sides of the story. Most however, will reject this change, as it is part of their culture to treat women the way they do, and in their minds, just because someone says it is wrong, does not make it wrong. They will believe their cultural methods of dealing with women are correct or morally justified, as this is how they have been raised, just as Westerners (in modern times) have been raised to treat women as equals and with respect. With this in mind, it is unreasonable to say it is the Middle Eastern man’s fault for the way he treats women, as when making his choices, his judgement has been formed through his culture and the environment in which he lives and he will subconsciously be biased to believe in what his culture sees as being correct. The Middle Eastern man’s conscience has been formed through his culture just as Westerners form their children’s conscience by teaching them right and wrong and letting them learn what is good and bad, and as a result when the time comes for the Middle Eastern man to use his “free” will, he will typically opt against the Western ideals because that is how he has been raised and he really has no choice in the matter.

In opposition to the belief that ones actions are determined by their environment, I would draw attention to Phineas Gage – a railway worker who suffered massive head trauma when a 3 foot metal rod pierced his cheek and exited his skull, resulting in severe left prefrontal cortex damage. This example is relevant as it was noticed that after the accident, Gage’s personality had radically changed, and whereas before he was regarded as the best foreman employed by his contractors, after the accident he became profane, fitful and impatient of any advice which conflicted with his own desires. His mind had been so radically changed that friends claimed that he was “no longer Gage”. Any action taken by Gage after the accident would therefore not be a result of his upbringing, as he began to act in the exact opposite way that he did before the accident and therefore his actions could not be attributed to his past experiences.

The case of Phineas Gage is an anomaly, as there was direct interference with his brain which changed his personality, however his memory was left in tact. In a similar way to which mind altering drugs change one’s perception of the world, the steel rod changed Gage’s perceptions which thus caused him to act in a contradictory manner to which he did before his accident. As such, while his history remained the same, his perception of his history changed which caused a change in his actions, thus it can be shown that people can create a metaphorical fork in the road of their predetermined life by altering their perceptions, but their actions will still be determined by their environment.

The concept of free will is flawed, as while we are able to make decisions in life they are intrinsically shaped by our experiences and knowledge of the world, and as a result, our choices are already made. An individual will act in accordance to the way in which he was raised, just as a beaten dog will become vicious, and water will flow down hill.