1 Zhao

Li Zhao
Prof. Ball
Philosophy 100
3/8/14

Free Will vs. Determinism
People often respond to one choice when presented with two different options such as
chicken or beef, Romney or Obama, and yes or no. The subjective picking of one side over
another is the power of free will which most individuals possess. In society, there is a standard
for behaviorism and moral conduct that all of the residents must abide to. People cannot murder
out of whim, and cannot perform acts not constituted as morally acceptable. In short, everyone
has a kind of moral responsibility endowed to themselves to not act and behave in a way which is
seen as unacceptable. This power of morality, and moral responsibility is directly correlated with
the conception of free will. It is because we are able to make a choice, that people are held
morally accountable for their actions. In Paul Holbachs The Illusion of Freewill, Holbachs
expertly articulates the premise of whether our actions are a consequence of the choices we make
out of free will, or if everything we do is based on the determinism, a belief that all happenings
are caused by things before them and individuals have no real ability to control or make choices.
In order to explicate Holbachs argument on the issue of free will and determinism, it is
important to grasp the aspect and basis on which his arguments originate from. As stated before,
moral responsibility and free will are directly correlated. If a car breaks down in the middle of
the road, the driver generally blames the manufacturer, not the car. In this sense, people are held
morally responsible for their actions, not the cars. We do this because, we believe that people
had a choice in the way they acted. As for the manufacturers, they had a choice in the different

1 Zhao

parts they used to create the car. Choosing better parts would ensure less problems for the driver.
In order to be morally responsible, you need to have free will. However, what does free will
actually mean. Free will means the ability an individual possesses to act at his own discretion
without the constraint of fate. When someone says, I shouldnt have lied, or I should have
studied, they are asserting that they had a choice but chose the latter in conjunction with the
former and suffered as a result. Because people have free will, they make moral judgments about
ourselves and about others. Consequently, Holbach presents the question of whether individuals
are really free or is behavior determined by factors outside our control? This is because
although, individuals tend to believe in free will, they also believe in other things that seem
incompatible with having a free will. Holbach uses causality, choice, and deliberation as a basis
to explicating his argument.
Causality is the belief that every physical event is caused by previous events according to
the laws of nature. Laws of nature are all necessary and immutable and as a result, cannot be
altered or changed. This means that we believe that nothing just happens without a cause.
There always has to be a cause for an event or occurrence. Likewise, people believe that causes
necessitate their effects. If the cause of one thing happens, the effect cannot not happen. Holbach
argues that our bodies are composed of the same materials and atoms and particles as rocks and
trees are bound to by the laws of nature. What is true for the causality for a rock or true must be
true for human behavior and bodily functions as well. People believe that if a rock erodes or
changes form, it is because of the time progressing over time or due to the weather. However,
due to necessitation, if the weather changes and time progresses, the only thing the rock can do is
change shape. The effect cannot not happen. And since people apply the same behavior of rocks
and trees as identical to that of our bodies due to the laws of nature, and because people believe

1 Zhao

that humans are material things, the laws of nature has to apply, then people have to believe
individuals could never have none anything other than what they do. There is no free choice due
to causality because of the laws of nature apply to us as well. Everything people choose is the
only choice they are offered because of the notion of causality and necessitation. Holbach uses
the well example as further clarification. He states the desire of conserving himself either
annihilates or suspends the former impulse and the second motive becomes stronger than the
first. In this scenario, a man presented with extreme thirst sees a well and his motive is to drink
water from it. However, in another instance, upon seeing an empty bottle of poison, the impulse
and fear that the poison produces of death overrides the original impulse of thirst. Therefore, the
man is neither choosing nor deciding on his actions. Rather, the object is sending different
impulses, acting on the desires of the man and causing those actions. There is a cause to all
events. If the cause happens, the result has to happen. Thus, if the cause of an individual picking
a blue shirt over a red shirt if because he prefers blue more, the effect of him choosing blue has
to happen. There is no alternative. Similarly, in order to be truly free, an action has to be
independent and free from determining physical causes but no human action is free from those
causes so people are never truly free. Holbach further articulates this on the basis of causal
determinism. This idea is directly correspondent to the notion of causality. Since nothing just
happens, all events are caused by previous physical events. Also, if causes necessitate their
effects, then all our behavior is necessitated by prior events, which continues on in a cycle that
never ends. In short, this type of determinism shows that our behavior is determined by factors
outside our control. Thus, we couldnt have free will and could never have acted in other ways
outside the ones we chose.

1 Zhao

Holbachs second point of clarification states that freedom, or free will, does not mean
the power of choice. Holbach states that that if it be proposed to any one, to move or not to
move his hand he evidently appears to be the master of choosing; from which it is concluded
that evidence has been offered of free agency (440). This notion means that if someone can
prove free will, they can simply just lift their own finger. The ability to choose is a direct
determination of whether a person possesses free will based on this assertion. However, this is
not the case according to Holbach. He later states that, Choice does not prove freedom,
man in performing some action which he is resolved on doing, does not by any means prove
his free agency; the very desire becomes a necessary motive, which decided his will either for
one or for the other of these actions. All individuals know people know actions are caused by
particular motives. However, in themselves, motives are caused by causes. Holbach does realize
that sometimes actions are made because of the choices we make, and sometimes individuals do
things because they desire to do them, but these desires that people have are themselves a result
of things beyond our control. Where does an individual get these desires and where are these
desires produced? The reasoning behind the choices an individual makes must come from
impulses from objects. Based on Holbachs statements, even the things people do because they
want to, is not an accurate illustration of real free will. This is further represented if a person
decides to pick one hundred dollars over ten dollars. The person decides to do this because they
want to or because they believe that one hundred dollars holds more value than one dollar.
However, according to Holbach, the idea of value and worth is an idea that in itself is
uncontrollable and are caused by things outside of our control. The idea of worth is caused by the
hundred dollar bill. As a result of this, the object is the thing that sends out impulses and
individuals act on these impulses. That individual doesnt have free will even if he makes the

1 Zhao

choice, because the objects impulse is acting on that person. Another illustration of this is
walking one way to class as opposed to another. Why does one take the same way to class every
day? The person chooses to take a certain road, but where does this choice come from? Why did
they make this choice? Even if that person decided to walk that way to class, it is because it is
shorter. Therefore, the person didnt really choose to walk that way because of his free will, he
decided to walk that way because the distance of the roads to his class sent impulses to him,
creating desires which he acted on. This is the reason why even if individuals have choice, it is
not directly represented as free will.
Holbach finally clarifies his argument through the use of deliberation and restraint. Every
single every person decides to do involves deliberation. Deliberation means that individuals
weight out the pros and cons of the various options that they have. They then choose the option
that has the most pros. So acting on purpose is doing something in a way that people believe
will achieve what they really want. Establishing the basis of deliberation transitions Holbach
further into his argument which is that choice does not prove freedom. If choosing an action
predisposes that people have wants and values because they weigh out the pros and cons of that
action, then the deepest wants that people have cannot be chosen. If someone chooses their
deepest wants, that would mean that there exists wants inside those deepest wants. It is much
like a never ending cycle of choice and wants. To choose something insists that there exists
wants or values because a person needs to have something they want in mind to make that choice.
A man who chooses between life and death has the deeper want of living. But what exists
inside the want of living? There must exist a want of staying with children, supporting a family,
enjoying activities. All these wants in themselves, have other wants and motives inside as well. If
someone chooses his deepest wants, it would mean there are even deeper wants existing within

1 Zhao

those wants because that person chose it regardless. Thus, when people do something because
they choose to those choices are determined by things even deeper inside of them that cannot
be chosen because if those are chose, there exists even more wants. Similarly, deliberation
doesnt always apply to making choices and having free will. Holbach states the scenario
between the slave bound by chains (440). A slave who is bound by chains weighs the pros and
cons of his decision. Does he choose to remain in changes or does he choose to risk escaping and
getting heavily punished? In this scenario, theoretically, the slave dreams of freedom. If he was
offered a choice between to remain enslaved or to be let go, the slave would definitely choose the
latter. Holbach states, Man frequently acts against his inclination, whence it is falsely conclude
that he is a free agent (442). Because the slave fears punishment, that fear overrides his want to
risk escaping to become free. In that sense, even if a person weighs the pros and cons of his
decision, it doesnt mean he has free will. In this sense, the slave fearing punishment becomes
his motive or his action, and the slave remains caged. Consequently, the slave cannot be said to
act on free will. Therefore, the choice through deliberation isnt a choice of free will; rather it
generally is paradoxical.
Conclusively, free will isnt so set in stone as many people think. Holbach asserts this
and casts doubt on free will through his articulation of causality, choice, and deliberation. Choice
doesnt necessary mean someone has free will and consequently, choice can impose the opposite.
Deliberation does allow individuals to make the best choice possible, however that choice often
lacks true inclination that an individual with free will can act upon. Causality proves that in order
for an event to happen, there must be a cause, however, necessitation states that if the cause of an
action happens, the effect has to happen meaning choices people make are the result of only one
option happenings, and not alternatives given. Free will is an important aspect that many people

1 Zhao

expect to possess. However, on the contrary, Holbach lifts the curtain and exposes the idea of
free will to be nothing more than a hidden notion, shrouding the fact that choices individuals
make do not represent free will. If people dont really have free will, then everything everyone
does is caused by determinism, implying there is a sort of fate to every action and cause to
everything. Holbach, presents the argument expertly and stimulates thought and casts doubt to an
idea that many individuals took for granted.