“意志力”的概念指的就是人类可以期望并能够自由思考的这一事实。换句话说，如果我们认为意志力是人类所独有的，我们也会认可这样一个事实：只有人类是自由的。反之，英语毕业论文，则认为人类没有意志力也不是自由的。因此，“自由意志力”的概念是有误导性的，它表明似乎人类以外的东西，英语论文范文，像石头或铅笔等都是有着不“自由”的意志力。 The concept of Will is referred to the fact that human being are able to desire, think, and deliberate freely. In another word, if we were to agree that Will is exclusive to human being, we would also consent to the fact that only human being are free. To deny that human beings have no will is to say human beings are not free. Therefore, the concept of “free will” is misleading. It seems to assume that something other than human beings, like, stone or pencil, has a Will which is “non-free”.
Since the concept of Will is usually related to the concept of soul, if we are to claim that human beings have soul, we would agree that human being have will, which enable human being to be free. Therefore, the debate over whether human beings have free will may be reduced to whether human beings have soul. it follows that among the opponents of free will, one of the arguments claim contend that human being have no independent soul, and therefore no Will, basing on the fact that people’s brain, which is normally considered as the position of the soul, is just a bunch of meat, or, neurons. However, just as what will be mentioned in my another about the body-soul dualism, the definition of soul is misleading. Soul was normally defined as immaterial, invisible, and independent existence. However, in my interpretation of the body-soul dualism what was considered to be “soul” in the past is just a function of the brain. When people desire, think, and contemplate, the brain functions in a particular way, just as the fact that when a car moves and brake, it is functioning in a way. Therefore, soul or will is not an independent existence, but only a state or function of the brain. However, this fact does not necessarily entail that will or soul can be reduced to tons of neurons, since to insure the effective function of the brain necessitates not only the series of scattered neurons, but also a particular ordered combination of them. Therefore, if we were to remain the concept of soul, we’d better use it as a verb, rather than a noun, and the same to the concept of will. When we are desire, thinking, and contemplating, to say that we are willing or “souling” is better than to say we have an independent soul or a will.
Nonetheless, determinism still has their arguments. One school of them argues that since human beings are born with a particular series of gene and into a certain environment, therefore they are determined by their gene and environment. In other words, people’s neurons are determined by their genes and people have no access to change the environment into which they were born, therefore, their brains are not able to function, will or “soul” in a free way.
This argument neglects the fact that the effective functioning of the brain requires not only neurons but also the particular combination of them. Truly, people were born with neurons determining gene. But the combination of them can still be changeable. In addition, this argument neglects the fact that people have access to different environments in which they live and have different choices. For instance, people are able to choose where to emigrate, where to eat, and which to eat at any time, though people are determined to live in this planet. Therefore, it is entirely justifiable to claim that human being are free to will. Though people cannot change their genes, they are still able to change to combination of their neurons. Though people cannot fly into to space with their “wings”, or, hands, there are still able to land on the moon with spaceships they make.
Another argument against the idea of free will is based on the misleading identification of causal relation with necessity. They claim that every people’s decision must have a cause, therefore their decision is determined by this cause and this cause is in turn caused by another cause. For determinism, people’s idea of free will derive from an elusion since they neglect the long series of casual relations behind their decisions. However, do causal relationships mean necessity? Just imagine the condition that an individual is ill and he has three different pills in order to heal himself. If he chooses pill A, it is justified to say his choice of pill A is caused by his illness, but it is counter-intuitive to say that he must or is necessary to take pill A.
Nonetheless, the latest neuroscience might provide a relatively convincing evidence to undermine the doctrine of free will. According to the latest discoveries from neuroscience, it is observed that the activities of brain slightly precede people’s consciousness of these activities. That’s to say, it is not human being’s consciousness or intention that change the activities of the brain, or, the combination of the neurons, instead. Rather，it is the activities of the brain that bring about people’s intentions and consciousness. This discovery, if true, would be disastrous to the doctrine of the free will and to various moral doctrines and religions. If people’s consciousness and intentions are determined by their physical and material activities, people have no free will. However, moral doctrines and criminal law are presupposing that people are responsible for what they choose. Therefore, no free will and thus no morality and no foundations for criminal law.
|
