You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The debate over free will is one of the oldest and most important in philosophy. It has profound implications for ethics: if human beings do not have free will — if our actions are determined by prior causes beyond our control — then it seems unfair to hold people morally responsible for what they do. The AQA A-Level specification requires you to understand hard determinism, soft determinism (compatibilism), libertarianism, and the theological perspectives of predestination.
Key Definition: Free will is the capacity of rational agents to choose between different possible courses of action. The debate over free will asks whether this capacity is genuine or merely an illusion.
Hard determinism holds that all events, including human actions and decisions, are entirely determined by prior causes operating according to natural laws. Free will is an illusion — we feel as though we choose freely, but in reality, every thought, desire, and action is the inevitable product of preceding causes.
Key Definition: Hard determinism is the view that every event (including every human action) is causally determined by prior events and natural laws, and that genuine free will does not exist.
The French-German philosopher d'Holbach was one of the clearest advocates of hard determinism. In The System of Nature (1770), he argued that human beings are physical beings entirely subject to the laws of nature. Our sense of freedom is an illusion caused by our ignorance of the causes that determine our behaviour.
D'Holbach wrote: "Man's life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it." Every action, thought, and desire is the necessary product of prior physical and psychological causes.
The American lawyer Clarence Darrow applied hard determinism in the courtroom. In the famous Leopold and Loeb trial (1924), Darrow defended two wealthy young men who had kidnapped and murdered a 14-year-old boy. Rather than arguing their innocence, Darrow argued that they were not morally responsible for their actions because their behaviour was determined by heredity and environment.
Darrow stated: "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and tried it out? ... Is there any reason to blame them because they were so?" He successfully persuaded the judge to spare them the death penalty, arguing that punishment was pointless if the defendants had no genuine freedom of choice.
Evaluation (AO3):
Soft determinism (also called compatibilism) agrees that all events are caused, but argues that free will and determinism are compatible. An action can be both determined and free, provided it is determined by the right kind of causes — specifically, by the agent's own desires, beliefs, and character, rather than by external coercion.
Key Definition: Soft determinism (compatibilism) is the view that determinism is true, but free will is compatible with determinism. An action is free if it is caused by the agent's own internal states (desires, beliefs, character) rather than by external compulsion.
Hume argued that the debate over free will rested on a confusion about the meaning of "freedom." Freedom does not mean the absence of all causation — it means the absence of external constraint. A person who acts on their own desires, without being physically forced or coerced, is acting freely — even though those desires are themselves caused.
Hume distinguished between:
The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt developed an influential account of free will based on second-order desires. A person is free if they can reflectively endorse their own desires — that is, if they want to want what they want.
| Level | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| First-order desire | A desire to do something | "I want to smoke" |
| Second-order desire | A desire about a desire | "I want to not want to smoke" |
| Second-order volition | The second-order desire that one wants to be effective | "I want my desire to not smoke to determine my actions" |
Frankfurt argued that a person acts freely when their actions flow from their second-order volitions — when they act on the desires they reflectively endorse. An addict who smokes despite wanting to quit is not free; a person who reflectively endorses their desire to help others and acts on it is free.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.