Reasons why Commentary by Bloom is the most Accurate

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Free Will
Introduction
Free will is the ability to make decisions of our own by choosing from a pool of alternative courses of actions without any hindrance. According to Fischer, Kane, and Pereboom (1), free will is the ability to make decisions and take moral responsibility for those decisions (1). The issue of free will is the most complex subject when it comes to philosophy, and it has been discussed for centuries. Different philosophers have different views on the concept of free will. Most of the philosophers believe that free will is an illusion, especially those philosophers who believe in determinism, although others believe that it exists because as human beings we make choices, however, limited they may be.
I think the commentary written by Bloom concerning the issue of free will is the most correct. Bloom describes the views of different scientists on the issue of free will, regarding whether it exists or not. One of the views is that our actions are determined partially by our genes and partially by our surroundings. Through this, the scientist is basing our actions on the law of physics, and therefore our actions cannot exist outside these laws of physics. However, Bloom disagrees with this view, arguing that most of our actions are chosen, rather than predetermined by forces beyond us. If we were to consider the scientist view described above, it would mean that free will does not exist since our actions are predetermined, denying us the opportunity to choose between various courses of actions. The other views of scientists described by Bloom are that even criminals do not have a free will, claiming that their actions are as a result of forces that are beyond their control. In addition, the scientists claim that we lack consciousness in our actions since they are as a result of environmental factors and unconscious motivations that drive these actions from within us. However, Bloom argues that these claims are wrong because they do not arise from a deterministic point of view. Moreover, if we take these claims as the truth, then the concept of moral responsibility will be no longer applicable, and the society will not be morally responsible for their actions.
Reasons why Commentary by Bloom is the most Accurate
In the commentary, Bloom highlights the issues related to free will and its relationship with moral responsibility, determinism and theological perspective of free will.
First, Bloom addresses the concept of free will and moral responsibility in his commentary. He points out that one can think and weigh the available options before making a conclusion. Weighing the options means that we have to consider the repercussions of each option before we act, and we should, therefore, be able to take responsibility as well. On a different point, he notes that some scientists claim that rejecting the concept of free will means rejecting the concept of moral responsibility. This is because someone cannot take responsibility for something they did not choose to do and had no control over. Rejection of free will is based on the fact that our actions are as a result of factors that are beyond our control, such as the environment or our genes. According to Schulz, Cokely, and Feltz, our society’s attitude towards punishments and rewards as a way of ensuring moral responsibility is based on the belief that free will and moral responsibility exist. Through this, the society assumes that we have a choice in performing a given action. Therefore, for people to be morally responsible for their actions, there should be more to it than just factors that are beyond human control. It is clear that people cannot be personally responsible for their actions if they believe that they have no control over those actions.
The second reason is that Bloom addresses the issue of free will and determinism. He points out that the scientists claim that our actions are as a result of inner unconscious factors and outer environmental factors and as such, even criminals do not commit crimes out of their own free will. This scientists support the concept of determinism from a biological and causal perspective. Determinism claims that every action that occurs was predetermined to occur and is as a result of external factors, rather than our own will. This claim indicates that our actions are beyond our control, no matter what. The claim is clearly against the concept of free will because if our actions were bound to happen, then we do not have the freedom to choose (Pink 303). This raises the question of whether free will and determinism are compatible. Clearly, determinism is incompatible with the concept of free will. Determinism discourages personal responsibility since people can not be responsible for actions that arose as a result of factors that are beyond our control. In addition, determinism denies us the freedom to choose and act out of our own free will. ...