Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start.
Indeterminism would be a more accurate description. There may be some fundamental "unpredictability" (randomness) injected into basic cause-and-effect.
The funny thing is, freewill actually demands cause-and-effect. I did thus and therefore caused that. This "decision making" would be impossible without cause-and-effect.
"Unpredictability" (randomness) is not compatible with freewill. A random "choice" is not an act of will. Any "good" "decision" must be context-sensitive (informed by history and non-random). And any "decision" that is informed by history and appropriate to a specific situation cannot be "free" of "influence".
But, who determines our behavior in the first place?
We react to our environment based on our genetic instincts and physical capabilities.
Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with.
Did you decide when and where you were born? Did you choose your instincts and physical characteristics?
If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist.
Do you believe that your accident of birth and physical characteristics "do not exist"?
We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power?
Do you believe all humans are born with an equal chance to be healthy, wealthy and wise?
Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being.
That's true. Many "legal" and "moral" concepts are incompatible with indeterminism. But I'm sure that invalidates those particular "legal" and "moral" concepts themselves and does nothing to cast doubt on indeterminism itself.
True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away.
Have you ever tried to simply "run away"? It's not as easy as it looks.
Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind.
Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will.
I see, when you're a slave to "a true moral compass" then you're "free"?
Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
Wouldn't you think that "the evil ones" lack of a "personal code" make them less predictable?
I mean, for example BATMAN won't kill, so, knowing that sort of limits their options, right?
Here's the problem.
There are only two possible options.
(1) your thoughts (and actions) are contextual (caused by previous experiences, including your biology).
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
If you pick #1, then your thoughts (and actions) relate to your memory and the world around you (contextual). This means your thoughts (and actions) are potentially USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
If you pick #2, then your thoughts (and actions) don't necessarily relate to anything at all. And as a matter of fact, statistically, it would be extremely unlikely that any RANDOM thought or action would be even remotely or incidentally USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
Now you might try to mix the two options, some caused, some uncaused, and that's fine.
Your useful thoughts and actions MUST BE CAUSED.
YOur "free" thoughts and actions are TAUTOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (99.999% of the time).