When we talk about free will, we’re diving into one of the oldest and most profound debates in philosophy. This concept is typically examined through two fundamental lenses:
- What does it truly mean to make a choice freely?
- What are the moral consequences of those choices?
As we pull on these threads, we quickly realize that the answers are far from simple, leading to a complex web of theories that attempt to define the nature of human agency.
Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism: A Clash of Ideas
The central disagreement in the free will debate boils down to whether human freedom can coexist with the idea of a predetermined universe, known as determinism.
What is Determinism?
Determinism is the philosophical stance that every event—including human thoughts and actions—is causally determined by a chain of prior events and the laws of nature. In a purely deterministic world, nothing is left to chance; everything that happens is the inevitable result of what happened before.
Compatibilism (Soft Determinism)
Compatibilism suggests that free will is compatible with determinism.
- The Core Idea: Compatibilists argue that while our personality, characteristics, and even our preferences are determined by external factors (like genetics, environment, and upbringing), we can still be considered free agents when we are free from certain constraints.
- Defining Free Will: For a compatibilist, free will is defined as freedom of action. As long as an individual is able to act according to their own decisions, even if those decisions were predetermined, they are exercising free will.
- What is a Constraint? The key distinction here is that determinism is NOT the constraint. A constraint is defined as any type of external coercion, such as imprisonment, duress, or physical restraint. If you choose to drink coffee, even though your desire for coffee was pre-determined by your biology and history, you are acting freely because no external force stopped you.
Incompatibilism
Incompatibilism claims that determinism and genuine free will cannot logically coexist. If every decision is predetermined, how can we be truly free?
This viewpoint doesn’t specify whether free will exists or not. Instead, it branches into three main positions regarding the outcome of the incompatibility:
- Hard Determinism: Denies the existence of free will entirely. Since determinism is true, free will must be an illusion.
- Metaphysical Libertarianism: States that free will does exist, and therefore, determinism must be false. Libertarians believe that true randomness or indeterminism must occur in the world to allow for genuine choice.
- Pessimistic Incompatibilism: Argues that neither free will nor compatibilism is true, leaving us without moral responsibility.
Offshoots of Incompatibilism
- Hard Incompatibilism: The belief that moral responsibility and free will are not compatible with determinism.
- Illusionism: The belief that free will is a comforting but false illusion.
Libertarian Causality
Metaphysical libertarianism relies on different views of how free actions come about through indeterminism:
- Event-Causal Libertarianism: Suggests that some events (like the neural processes leading to a choice) are not entirely predictable from earlier events; they are fundamentally uncaused or randomly influenced.
- Agent-Causal Libertarianism: This is the most radical form, asserting that a person (the “agent”) can start entirely new causal chains that are not determined by past events or the laws of nature.
Moral Responsibility: The Consequence of Choice
The discussion of free will is inseparable from the concept of responsibility, specifically moral responsibility.
- Responsibility is simply taking on a task and accepting its outcome. If you organize a conference, you are responsible for its success or failure.
- Moral Responsibility goes deeper; it’s responsibility based on a person’s moral codes. If the conference fails due to a massive, unpredictable snowstorm, you are responsible for the outcome, but are you morally responsible for the failure?
The Standard Argument Against Free Will
Both hard determinists and libertarians often pose questions that challenge the intuitive human feeling of responsibility:
- To a Libertarian: If your actions are entirely determined by events long before your birth, why do you feel responsible for them?
- To a Hard Determinist: If your actions are totally random and determined by chance (indeterminism), why do you feel responsible for them?
Yet, humans universally feel responsible for their actions. This suggests that responsibility must be driven by something inherent within us, and therefore, free will must be a prerequisite for responsibility, and responsibility must be a prerequisite for moral responsibility.
The Requirements of Free Will
To satisfy the philosophical conditions for a robust form of free will—one that allows for both freedom (libertarianism) and accountability (determinism)—the following requirements must ideally be met:
1. The Randomness (Freedom) Requirement
This requirement is rooted in indeterminism. It demands that:
- Chance must genuinely exist.
- Actions must be unpredictable and not strictly caused by external events; they must originate from us.
- After an action is performed, there must have been alternative possibilities—the belief that you truly could have acted differently. This means we are creating new causal chains and new information.
2. The Determinism (Will) Requirement
This requirement is essential for moral accountability. It suggests that:
- Adequate determinism must be true (allowing for statistical predictability).
- Our actions cannot be directly caused by random chance alone.
- A person’s actions must be causally determined by their own will (their character, beliefs, and desires).
3. The Moral Responsibility Requirement
This is the harmonious result of combining the first two. It states that people are morally responsible for their actions because:
- There were alternative possibilities (Randomness).
- The chosen action was performed freely and originated from the self (Freedom).
- The action was causally determined by one’s will (Determinism).
The question of free will is one that influences our legal systems, ethics, and self-perception. Are we truly free when we make a decision, and what are the deep implications that follow?
