The second, third, fourth, and sixth reasons express the scientific view of free will. We have relative free choice because we live in a non-deterministic world but are nonetheless restricted by the past and the general laws of science. The contingency of chance is the dominant factor of the universe; all events are the intersection of mutually independent event-streams. One is faced with multiple alternatives, each with a certain potentiality of behavior, interaction, and development. The act of choosing makes one of the alternatives manifest. The seventh, eighth, and ninth reasons propound the ethical view of free choice. If all our actions have been predetermined since the solar system’s birth, we are not morally responsible for our actions. Words such as refraining and self-restraint would be meaningless because there was no real possibility of an alternative outcome. Lamont’s first and fifth reasons express the psychological view. All humans share an “immediate, powerful, common-sense intuition” that freedom of choice is real, and therefore the burden of proof rests on determinists to show that it is an illusion. Complex human thought would not exist in a deterministic world because it would be superfluous. The third reason is the most compelling because it highlights the role of chance in our lives and how terrible accidents are not predestined and “meant to be”, but rather the accidental intersection of two independent events. The eighth reason is the least compelling because human linguistic patterns are not indicative of philosophical truths. I prefer Lamont’s argument because Blatchford’s completely negates the possibility of human change and our moral responsibility to become better people. My environment and upbringing may have a significant impact on my decisions. However, it is also my responsibility as an adult to objectively examine the root of my beliefs and whether they positively impact my life and society and adjust them as needed. The past is our foundation but not our master.