GRE Practice

Prompt:

The concept of free will is a fallacy. Many actions are not the product of choice and thus people should not be held responsible for them.

My response:

The above argument makes several bald assertions concerning free will and responsibility. It basically states that, since there is no free will, people cannot be held responsible for their actions (because they are merely "pawns" in a predestined world, one would guess). The statement assumes that if there is no free will, then there is no will at all, and only with will can one claim responsibility. The statement does make a good point against the argument for free will, because it states that, "[m]any actions are not the product of choice..." which is true. But to conclude from that reason that people cannot be held responsible for their actions is a fallacy in itself.

It is true that many actions are not the product of choice, and the situations we encounter are sometimes beyond our control. Take, for instance, the recent tsunami disaster in South East Asia. I doubt anyone willed such an event to occur, and the aftermath--the lives lost, the destruction, the disease, and the famine--certainly was beyond any person's control. Even on an individual scale, there are actions that are performed by people that they do not control. There are reflexes that just occur when stimulated, there is the need to evacuate one's bowels, gas, and hunger. Even breathing is not necessarily controlled by will. From the grand-scale tsunami to the individual breath, there are a wide array of actions that are not a product of choice, which would make a case against free will. It does not follow from this that man is not responsible for his actions.

Man is responsible for his actions, because, although he might not have free will, he does have a will. And while this will is bonded with destiny, it does not exclude man from taking responsibility for his actions. Returnng to the tsunami example of the previous paragraph, once the tsunami had ravaged South East Asia, people's reactions to the tsunami were governed by their wills. Whether one chose to help reconstruct ravaged homes, donate money, or completely ignore the problem, one needed a will to react, and hence one must take responsibility for the action. Even on the individual level, while being hungry, breathing, and evacuating one's bowels are things that the individual does not necessarily control, the will can choose whether one eats, whether one continues breathing, or when one needs to relieve oneself. Hence every action, whether chosen are not, can be taken into account because man does have a will, even though it is not a free will.

The argument above makes a good point about free will--it is a fallacy. There are so many actions that we cannot control. However, the argument automatically assumes that if there is no free will, then there is no will at all, and hence, no responsibility. This is not true. Man does have a will to choose how to react to situations that are beyond his control, and hence he must be held responsible for how he reacts. While he may not have a free will, it does not mean that he has no will at all.

*****

Something tells me I'm going to do very poorly on the GRE.