You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
How far are we the authors of our own actions? The free will debate is one of the oldest in philosophy, and the AQA Ethics component (7062, Component 1B) studies it for a specific reason: it underwrites the whole apparatus of moral responsibility. Praise and blame, reward and punishment, guilt and merit all seem to presuppose that the agent could have done otherwise. If our choices are merely the latest links in an unbroken chain of prior causes — genes, upbringing, brain chemistry, the will of God — then holding people responsible can look as unjust as blaming a stone for falling. The specification names three positions you must compare — libertarianism, hard determinism and compatibilism (soft determinism) — and asks you to trace their consequences for responsibility, reward and punishment.
Key term: Free will is the capacity of a rational agent to choose between genuinely open alternatives, such that the choice originates with the agent. The debate asks whether this capacity is real (libertarianism), an illusion (hard determinism), or compatible after all with universal causation (compatibilism).
Two distinctions sharpen everything that follows. First, determinism (the thesis that every event is necessitated by prior causes) is not by itself a position on free will; what divides the camps is what they infer from it. The hard determinist says determinism is true and therefore free will is unreal; the soft determinist (compatibilist) says determinism is true yet free will survives; the libertarian says free will is real and therefore determinism (at least of human choice) is false. Second, determinism comes in several forms the spec expects you to handle: scientific/biological (physics, genetics and neuroscience describe a causally closed world), psychological (our characters and choices are fixed by upbringing and unconscious drives — Freud), and theological (God's foreknowledge and predestination settle in advance what we shall do — Calvin). Naming the kind of determinism in play is a mark of a controlled answer.
Hard determinism holds that every event, human actions and decisions included, is fully fixed by prior causes acting under natural law, so that genuine free will does not exist. The sense that we choose freely is, on this view, an illusion bred by our ignorance of the causes operating on us. Critically, the hard determinist accepts the disturbing consequence the compatibilist tries to avoid: if no one could ever have done otherwise, then no one is, in the deepest sense, morally responsible.
Key term: Hard determinism is the view that every event — including every human choice — is causally necessitated by prior events and the laws of nature, and that genuine free will, and with it desert-based moral responsibility, therefore does not exist.
The Enlightenment philosopher d'Holbach gives the classic scientific/materialist statement. In The System of Nature (1770) he insists that human beings are wholly part of nature and so wholly subject to its laws; there is no special exemption for the will. "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." Our feeling of freedom is simply our failure to perceive the causes that move us — "the will is determined by causes" we do not notice. This is hard determinism in its purest, pre-neuroscientific dress.
Two modern currents reinforce d'Holbach. The psychological form, associated above all with Freud, holds that our deliberations are merely the surface of unconscious forces laid down in childhood; what feels like a sovereign choice is in fact the outcome of drives, repressions and defences we neither see nor control. On the Freudian picture the ego is not "master in its own house": it is buffeted by the id's instinctual demands and the super-ego's prohibitions, and the conscious reasons we give for our actions are often rationalisations after the fact. If that is right, then the most intimate sense of free decision is itself a symptom, and the choices for which we praise and blame people were settled by forces operating before any conscious "choosing" began. Psychological determinism thus mounts the responsibility-challenge from the inside, where d'Holbach's physics mounts it from the outside.
The scientific/biological form draws on genetics, evolutionary psychology and, most strikingly, neuroscience. Benjamin Libet's experiments (1983) appeared to show measurable brain activity — the "readiness potential" — building up several hundred milliseconds before a subject reported a conscious decision to flex their wrist, suggesting the conscious "decision" reports a process already underway rather than initiating it. Later studies (e.g. using brain imaging) claimed to predict simple choices seconds in advance. The apparent moral is that the conscious will is a spectator narrating decisions the brain has already taken. Candidates should note that the interpretation is sharply contested: Libet himself preserved a conscious veto ("free won't"), the choices studied are trivial twitches rather than considered moral decisions, and critics argue the readiness potential reflects general preparation rather than a specific decision. As a challenge to libertarian origination, however, the experiments are central to the modern debate and reward careful, qualified use.
Key term: Psychological determinism is the thesis that human choices are fully fixed by mental antecedents — character, conditioning and (for Freud) unconscious drives — so that the felt experience of free decision is the product, not the cause, of what we do.
The American lawyer Clarence Darrow turned hard determinism into a courtroom plea. In the Leopold and Loeb trial (1924) he defended two privileged young men who had murdered a 14-year-old boy, not by denying the killing but by denying full responsibility: their conduct, he argued, was the product of heredity and environment they had not chosen. "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously...? Is there any reason to believe that any one of us... is the maker of himself?" The judge spared them execution. The case is the standard illustration of hard determinism's practical edge — if desert is impossible, retributive punishment loses its justification, and the law should aim at protection and reform instead.
The position has real strengths: it fits the scientific picture of a law-governed universe without special pleading for humans, and it can ground a humane, non-vindictive approach to wrongdoing. But the objections are serious. Most obviously, it appears to abolish moral responsibility altogether, leaving praise, blame, guilt and merit as confusions — a conclusion many find a reductio of the theory rather than a discovery. It is often charged with being self-refuting: if all beliefs are merely caused, the determinist's own belief in determinism is just another effect, not a conclusion rationally arrived at, so the theory undercuts the very rationality it claims. And it collides head-on with the phenomenology of choice — the vivid, first-person experience of deliberating and selecting — which the determinist must dismiss as systematic illusion.
Compatibilism, or soft determinism, accepts that every event including our choices is caused, but denies that this rules out freedom. The trick, compatibilists argue, is that "free" never meant "uncaused" in the first place. An action is free when it is caused in the right way — by the agent's own desires, beliefs and character — and unfree when it is caused by external constraint: chains, coercion, a gun to the head. Determinism and freedom thus belong to different questions, and there is no contradiction in an action being both determined and free.
Key term: Compatibilism (soft determinism) holds that determinism is true and that we are free and responsible, because freedom consists not in the absence of causation but in acting from one's own internal states without external compulsion.
Hume diagnoses the whole dispute as a verbal confusion. Properly defined, "liberty" means only "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" — that is, the absence of external constraint, not the absence of causation. He draws the key contrast between the liberty of spontaneity (acting according to one's own desires — real, and compatible with determinism) and the liberty of indifference (acting with no determining cause at all — which would be mere randomness, not freedom). Indeed Hume argues that causal necessity is required for responsibility: we hold people answerable for actions only because those actions flow from, and reveal, their stable character. An action uncaused by the agent's character would be a fluke for which they could not be praised or blamed at all. Freedom and determinism, far from being enemies, need each other.
Walter Stace presses the same point with a memorable argument that the apparent conflict rests on a bad definition of free will. If "free" is wrongly defined as "uncaused," then of course nothing is free — but that definition does not match ordinary usage. We naturally distinguish, Stace notes, between a man who signs a confession freely and one who signs because he is being tortured; between Gandhi fasting from choice and a starving man with no food; between a thief who steals because he wants money and a kleptomaniac who cannot help it. In each pair the first is free and the second is not, even though both have causes. The relevant distinction is therefore not caused-versus-uncaused but internal cause (the agent's own desires) versus external constraint. "Acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent; acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent." On this analysis free will plainly exists, and moral responsibility with it.
Frankfurt refines compatibilism with the idea of second-order desires. What makes us free, he argues, is not just acting on a desire but acting on a desire we reflectively endorse — wanting to be moved by the desire that in fact moves us (a "second-order volition").
| Level | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| First-order desire | A desire to do something | "I want to smoke" |
| Second-order desire | A desire about a first-order desire | "I want not to want to smoke" |
| Second-order volition | Wanting a particular desire to be the one that moves you to act | "I want my desire-not-to-smoke to be effective" |
The unwilling addict, who smokes while wishing the craving did not rule him, acts unfreely because his action conflicts with the will he identifies with; the person who acts from desires they endorse is free. Frankfurt thus locates freedom in a structure of the will rather than in escaping causation altogether.
Compatibilism's appeal is that it keeps both prizes — the scientific picture of a caused world and the moral practices of responsibility, reward and punishment. Its critics, chiefly hard determinists and libertarians, make the same complaint from opposite directions: it changes the subject. Kant scornfully called it a "wretched subterfuge," and the modern objection is that if my very desires and character are themselves the inevitable products of causes I did not choose, then calling actions "free" because they flow from those desires merely relocates the determinism without dissolving it — I am still, ultimately, unable to have done otherwise. The internal/external line is also blurry: addiction, indoctrination and manipulation are in one sense "internal" causes, yet we hesitate to call actions springing from them free.
Libertarianism in this debate (not to be confused with the political doctrine of the same name) holds that determinism is false — at least of human choice — and that we possess genuine free will: at least some of our choices are not necessitated by prior causes but originate in the agent. Libertarians accept the bracing implication that the price of real freedom is a break in the causal chain, and they argue that this is exactly what moral responsibility requires. To be responsible, I must be the originator of my action, able in the very same circumstances to have chosen otherwise.
Key term: Libertarianism is the view that genuine free will exists, that some human choices are not determined by antecedent causes, and that this origination by the agent is the necessary condition of full moral responsibility.
Libertarians typically appeal to two sources. The first is the empirical self: we directly experience deliberation as open — facing genuine alternatives, weighing reasons, and selecting — and that pervasive experience, they argue, should not be dismissed as illusion without overwhelming reason. The second is moral experience: the reality of duty, regret and desert seems to presuppose that we could have acted differently.
The Scottish philosopher C. A. Campbell sharpens this into a precise claim. He concedes most of the determinist's territory: where there is no conflict between duty and desire, our actions do flow predictably from our formed character, and to that extent are "determined." But Campbell insists there is one situation in which the self transcends its own character — the situation of moral temptation, when our strongest desire pulls one way and duty the other. Here, and only here, the self can make a "creative" effort of will to rise above the line of least resistance that its character would otherwise dictate. This effort, Campbell argues, is precisely what the agent is conscious of from the inside as their own contribution, not the resultant of antecedent forces; and it is exactly the locus of moral responsibility, since we credit people most for resisting temptation. Campbell's restriction of libertarian freedom to moral effort is a more defensible target than Sartre's claim that we are radically free in every choice, because it concedes the predictability of ordinary behaviour while reserving genuine origination for the cases responsibility actually cares about.
The existentialist Sartre offers the most radical libertarianism. For Sartre "existence precedes essence": a paper-knife is made to a prior design, but a human being first exists and only then, through choices, creates what they are. There is no fixed human nature, and (Sartre being an atheist) no God to supply one; we are therefore "condemned to be free" — freedom is not a gift we may decline but a condition we cannot escape. With it comes total responsibility, and two characteristic experiences: anguish (the vertigo of recognising that everything rests on our choosing) and bad faith (mauvaise foi), the self-deception by which we flee freedom, pretending "I had no choice" or "I was only obeying orders." Sartre's waiter who over-performs his role, or the woman who lets her hand be held while pretending not to notice, are fleeing the freedom that is theirs.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.