The subject of free will and determinism is one of the oldest, most fundamental, and popular issues in classical and modern philosophy. It is a simple question of whether or not free will and free action exist in human beings, as every choice is attributed to one cause which is known in advance, and every action to physical phenomena. Free will is generally accepted to be the capacity of rational agents to choose from a range of options and is thus a basic philosophical concept upon which moral responsibility, social responsibility and legal liability are founded.1 The other side of the debate, determinism, claims that everything in the universe, the choices, thoughts, and actions of man, are the inevitable outcome of previous events and the laws of nature themselves, which are always there and can never be changed.2 To consider these intricate philosophical divisions, it is useful to explore in detail the way in which hard determinism undermines the notion of personal responsibility, the libertarian argument in favor of alternate possibilities, and the compatibilist effort to reconcile cause and choice in a single system.
An understanding of determinism necessitates knowledge of causal determinism, which states that the universe is one characterized by uninterrupted causal chains throughout time.3 In a strictly deterministic system, any human endeavor is not a random act but rather is a necessary consequence of genetics, brain states, conditioning, and physical laws. For instance, imagine a typical situation in which an individual is in a supermarket evaluating an item to buy: a bottle of water versus a sugary soda. This is not a spontaneous or independent choice, to a hard determinist. Rather, it is the result of previous conditions of the body, blood sugar levels, subtle advertising, and the present environmental signals. The individual has a clear feeling of making a free choice, but hard determinists argue that this is only an illusion of consciousness. Determinism is the belief that, given the same prior circumstances, no one could have acted differently than he did.4 This view poses a serious problem for the existing law and moral order. However, as soon as the actions of people are completely determined by events in the past and by the biological forces that are beyond their control, it becomes difficult to assign moral responsibility or legal liability to them for the actions they take, just because they “should have done” them.
The libertarian theory of free will is the opposite of hard determinism, in that it maintains that people have true free will and the ability to choose between actual alternatives.5 Libertarians are aware that external factors, social environments and life experiences shape human thinking, but they state that such factors do not fully determine or cause conscious decisions. This is particularly true for the whistleblower in a company who discovers that the company is involved in financial fraud and has to make the decision to report this. The consequences of revealing and exposing the misdeed are very serious, ranging from losing their job to becoming socially isolated and financially ruined; all of these are elements that have been considered hard deterministically to dictate behavior. However, the whistleblower considers moral issues and personal safety, and chooses to speak up. Those who believe in free will argue that without it, the idea of personal virtue and moral guilt, praise and personal credit has no real significance. Free will is a distinctive type of control over options that is afforded to human agents; it is human agents who are the source of actions, not just a passive extension in a chain of physical causes.6
Both hard determinism and strict libertarianism are extreme views, and many contemporary philosophers have come to the conclusion that a middle ground, or soft determinism, is more reasonable. According to compatibilists, the concept of free will does not contradict physical determinism, and the two can complement each other. Rather than freedom in terms of escaping from natural laws or physical causality, compatibilists redefine freedom as the ability to do things that one desires, motivated by one’s own desires and reasons for doing them, without being coerced by anyone or physically restrained by anything. If a person is physically locked in a room against his/her will, he/she is unable to leave the room and hence is not in a free and voluntary condition. If the same person is still in the room just because his or her own desire to sit quietly and read is still present, however, it is an internal desire and therefore a free choice, even if natural factors, psychological history, and brain chemistry originally formed his or her desire to read. The compatibilist holds that moral responsibility is fully valid in a deterministic world, as long as the conscious goals, character traits, and intentions of the individual are connected to the conscious actions which they take.
| Does determinism hold?Can free will and determinism both be real? | Determinism holds | Determinism does not fully hold |
|---|---|---|
| Free will and determinism cannot both be real | Hard determinism Every choice is the necessary result of genetics, brain states, conditioning and physical laws; the feeling of choosing freely is only an illusion of consciousness. Essay’s exampleA shopper picks water or a sugary soda, but blood sugar, advertising and the surroundings decide it. On responsibilityMoral responsibility and legal liability become hard to assign. | Libertarianism People have true free will and can choose between real alternatives; outside factors shape their thinking but do not fully determine a decision. Essay’s exampleA whistleblower weighs a lost job and social isolation against reporting fraud, and speaks up. On responsibilityWithout free will, virtue, guilt, praise and credit would have no real significance. |
| Free will and determinism can both be real | The essay does not take up this combination. | Compatibilism (soft determinism) Freedom is doing what one desires, for one’s own reasons, without coercion or physical restraint, even if nature and history formed the desire. Essay’s exampleA person locked in a room is not free to leave; one who stays to read because they want to is choosing freely. On responsibilityMoral responsibility stays valid in a deterministic world when goals, character and intentions connect to the actions. |
The site’s map, not part of the essay. It sorts the positions the essay compares by two questions; every description and example is taken from the essay’s own text. The grid follows the standard division of the debate in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
To summarise, the opposing arguments of free will vs. determinism are still in dispute and continue to influence the understanding of consciousness, ethics, law and human nature. The determinism of biological, physical and environmental influences on behaviour is less of an inevitability than a safeguarding of the fundamental theological belief on the part of human beings that they are active moral agents who are accountable for their trajectory. It’s a question everyone will have to keep wondering about whether it’s a thing of the past or if it’s the result of compatibilist ideology. Ultimately, by looking at these conflicting viewpoints, we will stay on the issues of accountability and human control in our understanding of life.
