Free Will And Mill's Argumentative Analysis

A free thinker forms their own opinions on a variety of topics such as politics and religion, regardless of what society believes. Much like the Enlightenment period, free thinkers rely heavily on scientific inquiry and logical thinking. Many authors, scientists, and researchers alike have analyzed the topic of freethinking; each developing their own opinion on whether they believe society has adopted the concept of freethinking. Sam Harris and John Stuart Mill have joined in on the debate about whether society has actually developed a true sense of freethinking. Two common themes among this debate are biological factors and societal factors, as stated in both Harris and Mill’s literature. After reading the theories that both of these authors have developed, I have determined that, no I do not believe I, nor society, has truly developed a sense of freethinking. In Sam Harris’s Free Will, he states, “free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions
If free will actually does “emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control” how can we truly call ourselves “free thinkers”? The choices we make or thoughts that consume us evolve from a predetermined cause and therefore, these are not choices we actually make for ourselves at all. In observing the topic of freethinking from a biological standpoint, Harris makes an acceptable argument. Our thoughts and the choices we make derive from a chemical process in our brains based on our genetic makeup and then milliseconds later we act on this process. However, this process was predetermined; it was a thought process that we would have made anyway. This is where I have found Harris’s argument the most persuading. If the points Harris makes are true, then the opinions that make up the definition of a free thinker are not their own opinions at