0

I am writing a speech which I will deliver to my fellow classmates. I wrote a paragraph which is as follows :

Your will is not free. Your will is determined by me, by society and by countrymen. For example, If I do bad to you, your will shall force you to hate me and thus I determine your will. If I do good to you, you'll do good to me, again I shall be dictating your will.

By above paragraph I want my fellow classmate to believe that they should surround themselves by good people. Many students of my class roam with hooligans and they say "when the time comes I will take a better path." I wrote the above paragraph to make them realize that your surroundings do matter. You cannot suddenly change your path.

Does this make logical sense? Is it persuasive?

Edit 1 : In the line - For example, If I do bad to you, your will shall force you to hate me and thus I determine - I orignally used ENFORCE in place of FORCE cause ENFORCE means - Compel to act. Someone edited that and replaced ENFORCE WITH FORCE. I want to learn why it was necessary to do?

  • 1
    What if instead when you do bad to a person, they are faced with a moral dilemma: Eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? If you're trying to convince someone that they don't have free will, your argument won't have a lot of mileage. – called2voyage Jan 4 '17 at 18:15
  • Going beyond that, even if will were so directly affected, I can choose whether to focus on your effects on me or someone else's. And if you decide I should hate you, it is still my will that decides whether to come after you with a knife or vicious rumor. 'Animus' is only one tiny dimension of the will. – jobermark Jan 4 '17 at 19:43
  • Yea this doesn't really address any true aspects of free will. This is almost more of a sociological question than a philosophical one. If you do a bad thing to someone, and they in turn hate you because of that, then they were determined to do that. However you don't KNOW beforehand if they would be determined to hate you, unless you could have a truly predictive model that encompassed all variables (i.e. a complete and accurate laws of physics). Their response to your "bad" act, isn't any more determined than you doing that "bad" act was. – monster319 Jan 4 '17 at 19:47
  • There's no question here, just a statement that you have written a paragraph of text. Could you develop what it is that you want answered? – Isaacson Jan 5 '17 at 7:18
  • To understand whether people's personality and actions are governed by those around them you might start with the Twin Studies of Thomas Bouchard and look at his critics also. As to whether anyone will listen, while many psychologists believe in an instinct/rational thought duality, many experiments like this one seem to show that most decisions (even emotional ones) are still made rationally. None of these questions are questions of philosophy, however, you may get a better answer at Cognitive Sciences. – Isaacson Jan 5 '17 at 8:30
2

As it stands, it's a bit self-contradictory, because you're encouraging them to make different life choices, while simultaneously denying that they have the ability to do so. It's a bit of an anti-existentialist viewpoint because it denies the central existentialist claim that people are always and ultimately free and responsible for their actions. Therefore, you might look up critiques of existentialism, such as this one: https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2012/09/05/a-critique-of-existentialism/

0

This makes logical sense if and only if you maintain that saying that the will is not free doesn't necessarily imply that one has no freedom at all over their will. It would thus be wise to modify that part of your speech to include this disclaimer.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.