There is an ambiguity between determinism and free will. Determinism can be defined as the predetermined future that results from the inevitable plans of a divine being or powerful natural forces. In this argument, humans are simply dominoes in a chain of events, waiting to be toppled into their respective places. If determinism is true, then there is only one possible future. Believers of determinism assume that free will is an illusion created by humans to satisfy their need to have control over their destiny. Free will believers define the concept as the ability to make choices that affect the future, when an alternative choice could have been made given the same pre-existing conditions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Chisholm's attempt to clarify this ambiguity revolves around the phenomenon of event causation, in which future events are caused by previous events or states (Lesson 20, Slide 10). The concept of free will does not apply to this situation since the culmination of previous events only results in one possible future. In this scenario, humans might be under the impression that their personal choices led to future events, when in reality the explicit sequence of events made any alternative choices unachievable. Divine or natural forces took into account human deliberation to predetermine the future. Alternatively, Chisholm also believed in the existence of free choice or Agent Causality (Lesson 20, Slide 11), where the human implicitly causes the choice. There is a subtle distinction between being the cause of the choice and being involved in an event that causes the choice. The difficulty arises in differentiating these two circumstances. If a choice is caused by you, you will probably take responsibility for the repercussions of the decision, whereas an event that involves you and causes similar repercussions will not have the same impact on you. Let's say you eat a banana for lunch. Just as you finish eating you are distracted by a phone call informing you of a family emergency. You aim for the garbage can when you throw away the banana peel, but in your haste, you miss the garbage can and the banana peel falls an inch away from the garbage can. Suddenly, a small child approaches the garbage can, trips on a banana peel and falls, injuring himself. You feel terrible about this event, but in the back of your mind you realize that it was simply an unfortunate accident. On the other hand, let's say you regularly babysit this naughty child and you want to teach him a lesson. You purposely planted the banana peel because you knew the child would go near the garbage can after you told him not to. You expected the child to trip and fall, but you didn't expect him to get hurt. You would have a different reaction to this incident. Your choice to cause harm to the bratty child makes you responsible for his injuries, even if you didn't intend for his injuries to be so extensive. According to Chisholm, this distinction allows us to sidestep the topic of the mind (Lesson 20, Slide 12) . Although the mind argument does not support the concept of a predetermined future, it assumes that we do not possess the ability to freely make decisions that affect our future. Human beings do not fully control their choices, as decisions are often influenced by external factors, ranging from the toss of a coin torational advice. Given the nature of human decision-making, the choices made by individuals do not reflect the concept of free will. According to Chisholm, one can be sure that there is a form of indeterminism fully consistent with free will and moral responsibility (Lesson 20, slide 11). The problem with this view is that there is no apparent difference between the brain activity of the individual who makes the choice and that of the brain of the individual who accepts the sequence of events. However, there will be a difference in the mentality of these two individuals in the future. Someone who feels they are in control of their destiny will act differently than someone who believes their future depends on the whim of a natural or divine force. For example, a person who believes in free will may view their promotion at work as a reward for their choice to work diligently and may choose to continue their dedication to the job to increase their chances of another promotion in the future. While someone who believes their future is predetermined will likely remain apathetic after the promotion. They don't feel pressured to put in time and effort to get a future promotion, since subsequent events have already been determined. In this scenario, the individual can calmly wait for the future to arrive because he feels he cannot change the predetermined events. Therefore, personality and stress levels will be very different between these two individuals. Someone who believes they cannot manipulate their future will blame their failures and attribute their successes to forces outside their realm of control, but someone who believes in free will may take failures and successes more personally. In other words, they will feel morally responsible for their choices. Although some individuals believe in a divine force that predetermines everything, free will believers may also invoke religion to support their claim. In the book of Genesis it was not predetermined that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit and be banished from the Garden of Eden. God provided Adam with a conscience and the gift of free will to do as he desired, and Adam's wrong choice resulted in this travesty. It could be argued that Adam was influenced by Eve, who was in turn influenced by the devil in the form of an evil serpent. However, Eve chose to listen to the serpent and Adam also chose to listen to Eve, which demonstrates his exercise of free will. Furthermore, the presence of guilt and the question of morality characterize the concept of free will. You will feel morally responsible for your bad decisions if you believe in free will. For example, a drunk driver who believes in free will probably feels responsible if he hits and kills someone. They believe that their decision to operate a vehicle after being drunk makes them guilty. However, if someone believes in predeterminism, he will console his conscience with the fact that the individual died according to divine plans. These divine plans are immutable and therefore the drunk driver could not have prevented the succession of events. In this case, it is believed that the drunk driver was simply involved in the event, but did not cause the event. Those who believe in predeterminism would invoke the concept of event causation, which presupposes that the state of intoxication combined with the consecutive consequences The event of operating a vehicle caused the intoxicated individual to kill someone, but the intoxicated person he never had free will to decide his fate. Subsequently, the person who believes in free will may suffer from feelings of guilt andpost-traumatic stress disorder. These emotions will manifest as changes in brain activity that differentiate this individual from someone who believes in predeterminism. Physically, the additional stress induced by belief in free will can cause symptoms including high blood pressure, sweating, and heart palpitations. On the contrary, those who believe in predeterminism may have fewer scruples. They will accept the predetermined events and, physically, remain unchanged after the accident. They will remain comfortable with themselves, as if the tragedy never happened. While the differences between the two individuals may not be immediately apparent, the mental psyches of these individuals will diverge over time. The difference in mental states will later manifest themselves as physiological symptoms. However, Chisholm only considers the short-term consequences for these two individuals and draws short-sighted conclusions from these incomplete observations. Given Chisholm's conclusions, he prefers to avoid discussion of the differences between believers of free will and those of predeterminism. He simply chooses to describe agent causality as a fundamental reality (lesson 20, slide 14). He postulates that there is no explanation for the causality of agents; it simply exists (Lesson 20, Slide 14). A limitation of this belief lies in the fact that agent causality occurs only in rational and conscious beings. It does not appear to occur naturally. However, humans are not metaphysically special, so the laws that govern the natural world should apply to us too. Although most of Chisholm's claims are accurate, another major weakness of his argument comes from his claim that the situation in which the person controls the event by making choices of his own accord and the situation in which the person simply chooses to follow the predetermined sequence of events are exactly identical. Metaphysical states may be identical in a specific time frame, but if one examines the long-term repercussions, the differences will become apparent. To maintain its validity, the condition that everything is metaphysically coherent only in the short term should be added to Chisholm's argument. According to Chisholm, an agent is characterized by its ability to initiate new causal chains that have not been determined by previous events (Lesson 20, slide 11). For example, the human genome contains a genetic code that predetermines human traits. However, if a virus attacks and alters a portion of the human genome, it can cause serious diseases including cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. First, the virus alters a single codon on an RNA strand. Since RNA helps in the DNA transcription process, a change in RNA is also equivalent to a change in DNA. DNA codes for amino acids, which produce proteins and enzymes. Together, proteins and enzymes control the function of the human body. In this scenario, the virus is an agent that starts a new causal chain. Coming from outside the body, the existence of the virus and invasion of the human body are not determined by previous events regulated by the genetic code. However, viruses are not living creatures that act as conscious, rational agents. The main concern of a virus is its replication. It contains DNA that allows it to replicate and be responsible for its behavior. Another important distinction is that Chisholm believes that choices are influenced by extrinsic factors, which makes the concept of free will questionable. According to Chisholm, there is a supposedly predetermined chain of events (lesson 20, slide 18). If we follow this chain backwards, we occasionally come across an event.