Human agents, according to John Martin Fischer, do not have free will, but they are morally responsible for their choices and deeds. In a word, Fischer believes that the control required for moral responsibility is weaker than the control required for free will.
Some philosophers feel that moral responsibility does not need free will. Other philosophers believe that moral responsibility requires free will. For example, Thomas Hobbes said, "Actions are left to us as if they were done by us; and hence the name 'voluntary' actions." And Samuel Johnson argued that humans have a tendency toward evil, but also have a capacity for good, so there is room for freedom in how we act.
Philosophers have disagreed on this issue for centuries. No clear-cut view has emerged from these discussions. The question of whether or not humans have free will is an important part of many larger debates among philosophers: debates about determinism vs. indeterminism, dualism vs. materialism, mechanism vs. purpose, and more.
Vonnegut often asserts that there is no such thing as free will. Humanity is a slave to predestination, which means that all human acts are predetermined before they occur. A person who chooses to do something is not truly choosing; the decision has already been made. Whether it be good or bad, it has nothing to do with the individual.
Free will is a popular concept in philosophy. It is an idea that exists in many different types of thinking, from religion to science. For example, religious scholars often argue that because everyone else believes in God, then they must believe in Him too. Science also deals with the concept of free will. Scientists such as David Hume and Thomas Hobbes argued that since we cannot control what happens at a past moment, then we have no choice about what happens at a future one either. However, modern scientists such as John Searle and Daniel Nahmias have countered by saying that while we cannot change the past, we can always change the future by acting.
In conclusion, Kurt Vonnegut does not believe in free will. He thinks that humanity is only capable of acting according to principles/predestinations that lie beyond our control.
There is no moral responsibility if there is no free will. If moral responsibility exists, then someone is ethically accountable for anything he has done or left undone. To be morally accountable for an act or failure to act implies the ability to behave differently, whatever that may involve;...
There is no such thing as moral duty if we do not have free will. As a result, someone has free will if moral responsibility exists. As a result, moral responsibility does not exist if no one possesses free will.
Sociologists have established that, while people have the power to do practically anything in principle, free will does not exist in practice. Human behavior is constrained by social forces including culture and biology.
Free will is a popular concept with many implications for how we live our lives. If we have no free will then there is nothing truly bad or good about what we do, it's just what we happen to be doing at the time. If this is true, then there is no need for punishment or reward - just an understanding of how things are connected to other things and an adjustment of circumstances to change what happens next. This view has been influential in some religious traditions (e.g., Hinduism) but also in some philosophies that see humanity as inherently evil (e.g., nihilism).
The majority of psychologists today agree that humans have no free will but they also agree that this fact does not reduce human responsibility for what they do. People still make choices even if they cannot act on them independently from social forces. That is why most psychologists also believe in moral responsibility despite their view on human nature.
In conclusion, yes, sociologists believe in free will. They just don't think it exists in practice.