Analyzing our specific free might can be extremely interesting and that can almost reach the point to be paradoxical. Fundamentally, free will determines the level of obligation we claim for our actions. Clearly, if outside forces determine our alternatives, we cannot be held responsible for our actions (i.e.: Determinism). However, if our choices are produced with total freedom than certainly we ought to claim responsibility for the choices and actions. Both quite opposite theories on individual human freedom, determinism vs. freewill, or existentialism. In comparing both of these theories the contrasts are quite outstanding.
Evidently, some philosophers felt that people didn't genuinely have a free might. This view understood to be determinism held that one casual legislation rule what occurs inside world. There are two main major types of determinism, including difficult determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism taught that all of our actions is dependent upon factors beyond our control including heredity and environment. Using this point of view there may be no real ethical duty for our actions if our actions had been based on facets beyond our control. There clearly was a whole denial of individual free might in hard determinism. Soft determinism, but seems to combine determinism and free will. It teaches that may be determine all peoples actions as very early youth experiences thus relinquishing us from total duty for the actions brought on by such determining factors.
But if my actions were caused by personal thinking exclusive of outside factors than i need to take responsibility for my choices. As a whole comparison with determinism, existentialism professes the entire freedom of person. This reading we read dealt with atheistic existentialism, this view of personal freedom rejected a belief in Jesus, feeling that it is incompatible using the doubt and harsh truth of life during two wars…

How to cite this essay: