In the world of philosophy, there is a recurring argument that takes multiple positions: can we be free even if the future is determined by the past? The question of freedom affects the way of life, and philosophers help to reconstruct the premises that show the problem of free will. The free will problem clearly states:1. Human beings have free will. – The hard determinist refuses.2. The world is deterministic. – Libertarians refuse.3. Free will is incompatible with determinism. – The compatibilist refuses. What is considered most plausible is to reject premise number three; Free will is incompatible with determinism. According to Rauhut, “The fundamental assumption of compatibilism is that we are free until we encounter forces that prevent us from doing what we want to do; it doesn't matter that our actions are determined by the past” (p. 89). To understand this reasoning, there are two scenarios to keep in mind. The first scenario states that this prisoner is starving because he is not being provided with food. The second scenario states that this prisoner is starving because he does not want to eat, although he is provided with nourishment. Rejecting the third premise explains the ways of a compatibilist, which is more preferable. The first scenario does not show compatibilism because there is an external force that prevents the prisoner from receiving nourishment. If there are multiple paths written for the prisoner, and he/she is forced to take the path that the prison offers him/her, without being able to make any of the choices presented to him/her. The second premise, however, shows compatibilism because it shows that the inmate chooses to receive nourishment or not. This shows t... in the center of the paper... ink a soda can. This statement shows that you had the desire to drink soda without any external source forcing you to drink that soda. Now to criticize, what if there was a computer chip implanted in your brain, that whenever you feel thirsty, you have to satisfy this craving by grabbing the can of soda in the refrigerator. Are you still satisfying your craving or is an outside force forcing you to drink the can of soda? You currently don't know that there is a chip implanted in your brain, but you still satisfy the thirst craving by drinking a can of soda without anyone stopping you from doing so. As long as you have the desire to drink the can of soda to quench your thirst, you are realizing the compatibilist idea of ​​free will. Works Cited Rauhut, N.C. (2004). Final questions: thinking about philosophy. New York: Longmann.