1. Based on the notion of compatibilism, determinism is consistent with free will. Compatibilism is the conviction that determinism and free will are compatible thoughts. Based on this, it is feasible to believe in the respective philosophical facets without being rationally inconsistent. Simply, compatibilism believes that free will is well-matched with a place whereby all actions are determined by the incidences or events that precede them. Additionally, since free will tends to be normally perceived as a necessary stipulation of individual moral responsibility, the aspect of compatibilism is often seen as a view or theory regarding the plausibility of compatibility between determinism and moral accountability. Concerning the association between determinism and free will, the compatibilist claims the rationality of a possible relationship between human freedom and determinism. Accordingly, there needs to be a causal or deterministic association between a person’s will and his or her actions. If this is possible, then human beings may actually be capable of taking responsibility for their respective actions including consequences based on whether their activities are good or bad. In addition to this, the compatibilist believes that free will involves an insufficiency in external hindrances, further reinforcing the position of the connection between will and action.
  2. Undeniably, a considerable difference is evident between the statements, “x has done y freely”, and “it is possible that x could have done otherwise”. Typically, it is claimed that the proposition ‘x’ is legally or morally responsible for engaging in ‘y’. In this respect, the statement is that ‘x has freely carried out y”. Furthermore, the proposition “x has done y freely” is seen as equal to the assumption that “x could have done otherwise”. Hence, this means that if ‘x’ has tried or chosen to engage in another action apart from ‘y’, then he or she would have averted from carrying out ‘y’. Similarly, the connotation of ‘freely’ is not simple to comprehend. As a fact, x’s participation in performing y may be influenced by aspects or causative agents over which the former could not be capable of controlling. Because of this possibility, responsibility should be hinged upon definite factors of the circumstances surrounding the actions and the respective character. Alternately, responsibility may be hinged upon the agent’s responsibility. Hence, to assert that an individual is responsible for a particular action implies that he or she is legally responsible for the general repercussions that arise from the corresponding action.
  3. According to Shri Krishna, death is more of a meaningful departure than an extinction of the body and the soul. For the person capable of inhabiting his or her inner life, the aspect of death acts as a final resting place. When the consciousness of a person undergoes a divine transformation, the necessary nature of death will finally be incapable of materialization. This is because death does not cause the transformation of life. Rather, definite aspects such as peace, bliss, power, and light are responsible for altering one’s life based on the way they yearn for aspiration. In addition to this, they exude anxiety towards the provision of eternal life to human being. Interestingly, death lives as a component of the body, but it is incapable of occupying the soul. In fact, the soul is incapable of living within a single entity especially when the respective body dies or sleeps. With this, it is evident that death is merely the present tenet of decay within a person’s body. Shri Krishna convinces Arjuna that death is not evil by telling him that death already exists as a part of us since it acts as a vital component of physical nature.