Corliss Lamont, who is in opposition to Robert Blatchford, presents to us the issue of freedom of choice and human responsibility. Lamont attempts to prove that there is existence of free will, and that freedom is a necessary condition of moral responsibility. On the other hand, Blatchford develops a view of determinism against the theories of freedom and free choice. He suggests that the past, along with the laws of nature, determine our future. Every event that occurs, including human actions and choices, are predestined given the laws of nature and the events that preceded it.Lamonts theory or conclusion differs from that of Blatchfords because Lamont believes in the extreme opposite. If determinism is true, then this eliminates the possibility that each human individual has control over their own lives and the ability to make choices about their future on the basis of reason. Free will has been held to be incompatible with determinism.If we assume that human beings have the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances, then we are completely contradicting determinism, which states that human beings have no free will to choose what they wish, and that we cannot avoid doing what we do.The question of whether there is free choice or whether we are subject to ordinary causality raises the issue of determinism in human conduct. Are we ultimately determined by our biology, heredity, environment, beliefs, and other conditioning factors, or whether we have free will to override any such determination? I agree with Blatchford and the theory that there is a cause for every wish and every choice a man acts from. I believe we are free to choose as heredity and environment cause us to choose.Our choices can make a difference, and do make a difference. Different choices will lead to different actions, but we cannot avoid the choices we make. We only perceive that we can change our actions and behavior...
