I think that there are many good points that suggest determinism is a strong philosophical view to believe in, however, I think a flaw exists for determinism that makes indeterminism more plausible. Determinism suggests that if a person knew everything, they could predict your entire life and the future surrounding you. I do not think this is possible. I cannot see how one person would ever be able to know everything about a person and their past to be able to fully understand and even predict the future of that person. I also think that natural disasters and chance events that are seen as completely unpredictable cannot be a logical factor for determinism. These chance events can completely alter a person’s life and I do not know how a person could accurately predict that this chance event would happen and how it would affect the future of that person. This is mainly why I cannot find determinism to be completely plausible and therefore believe that indeterminism is the more reasonable view. Also, I think indeterminism plays a significant role in free will and I thought Kane had a very strong argument for free will with his newfound idea of self-forming actions, which further support the view of indeterminism.

Determinism is a pessimistic view of human life. I agree with Nagel when he writes that the concepts presented by determinism (that “everything [he] did was determined by [his] circumstances and [his] psychological condition) makes him feel trapped. There is something comforting to the idea that every day we can create ourselves through new choices as opposed to be the product of our past. One thing I don’t fully understand is when the first action takes place that is the basis for determinism. Does it happen the day a person is born? Or does is happen before that person is even born? And if that is the case, do the actions of our mothers and fathers determine our own actions too? The case for determinism is confusing, but in some ways it also makes perfect sense.

In her Ted Talk, Ruth Chang talks about hard choices. In one example, she talks about comparing the weight of two suitcases and how there are only three options. She claims that the world of value is different than the world of science because a person cannot assign a number to values such as goals or personal fulfillment when comparing two jobs, which makes that decision a hard choice. The University of Michigan admissions committee tried to do just this (assign numerical value to immaterial attributes of the applicants) by implementing a points system for their undergraduate school. While points could be given for GPA and standardized test scores, there were also sections for “Personal Achievement” and “Leadership and Service” both of which lacked concrete definitions. This is an example of how sometimes people try to take the “hard” out of “hard choices” which doesn’t exactly work because the UM admissions process was sued in the Supreme Court which eventually ruled that the process was ruled Unconstitutional.

In her Ted talk, Chang explains the methodology of how you pick between two options. She says that between the two choices one has to be greater, lesser, or equal to the other in value. If the two choices happen to be equal a fourth option arises: being “on a par.” This means that at the point when the pros and cons of both choices equal one another, and thus the choices are equal, free will can’t totally determine what option one should pick. Free will appears somewhat as an illusion. On a par means that one alternative isn’t better than another, which is why the choice becomes hard. So the choice one ends up making tells a lot about that individual’s characteristics, motives, and purposes, etc.. But because we learn all of this about ourselves, part of Kane’s self-forming theory has to apply at some point. So even if it seems like you have free will, and when you actually do have free will, a choice shouldn’t be made lightly because it defines your personality.

During our conversations in class and our readings, I tended to lean towards more of a deterministic mindset. I personally do want to believe in free will yet I feel as if determinism is more appealing, has more options for why something occurred and has a stronger basis for its actions. Yet, as someone is class mentioned, I do agree that it’s a type of cycle. I do think that at one point, free will was there to make one choice but as life goes on, both free will and determinism take place, yet determinism has more of an impact on life and causes more actions to occur rather than free will does since you grow and react from the experiences you’ve had and also learn from them. I think that the concept of Kane’s self-forming actions gives a stronger support for free will and I do think he is correct in that yet I think that determinism leads a majority of actions that one makes.

I know that during our discussion of free will we talked about the scenario – and others like it – where, for instance, a father wanted his son to jump into a lake and the child slips and falls in. The child did not choose to jump into the lake, so his father should not praise him for the action. We also discussed scenarios where someone was forced to do an action, indicating a lack of free will. This got me thinking about the Nuremberg Trials, in which the defense (many leaders in Nazi Germany) argued for lesser punishment by arguing “superior order.” They claimed that they only did what they did because they had to; it was what the higher-ups ordered. Our discussions have allowed me to see that what they were essentially saying was that they had no free will. They had to follow orders or they themselves would be harmed. While there is obviously no debating the monstrosity of their actions, it would be interesting to see what others, given that they believe in free will, think of this or simply the claim of “superior order” in general.