Baron D Holbach's Argument In The System Of Human Free

Do we truly ever act freely? Is everything we ever do our choice? Or are there other agents acting on those decisions? Baron d'Holbach, William James, and more argue on if humans act freely or are determined. The difference between the two is significant. What Baron d'Holbach, argues on the side of determinism is that everything is caused by a previous event and there (typically) are not any alternative outcomes. On the other hand, William James argues that humans act freely in every minute or substantial decision they make. Throughout this essay, these principles will be critiqued, but in the end, determinism is the more logical of the two that account for human agency.

Baron d'Holbach and Paul-Henri Thiry wrote “The System of Human Freedom”
That term is locus of control. There are internal and there are external loci of control. Internal means whatever you are choosing to do comes from within yourself-- you are in control. Whereas, external means something in the environment or outside of the self is causing you to do said thing or making said thing happen. Determinists would argue for external locus of control. Nothing is ever solely your choice. For example, let’s say I was on a dating show where I could choose between two men as my prospective partner. One man was more “my type”--he had brown hair, a good build, and had a good personality. Whereas, the other guy was blonde, short, and had a personality that clashed with mine. The obvious “choice” would be the first contestant. However, I was given two options. I could choose contestant one or contestant two. To believe that I had the ability to choose contestant two is incorrect. Whether I knew it or not or whether the producers knew it or not--I would only ever be able to choose contestant one. Determinism is based on physical forces, which no other option would have happened no matter how badly we argue against it by saying we do have free
Locke believes that we have God-given rights, which are: life, liberty, limb, health, and property. If at any point our government fails to protect those rights then we are allowed to step in in a non-violent way. It is up to the individual to enforce own executive power. Martin Luther King Jr.’s argument is very similar. He discusses multiple biblical figures. They fought for what they believed in in a non-violent, yet extreme way. King says “... Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists,” (491). King takes it upon himself to cause a movement towards civil rights. His civil disobedience is exemplified in the title: “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” King fought what laws he felt were unjust in a civil