Introduction
Philosophy is one of the broadest fields of academic study, as it encompasses a wide variety of topics ranging from metaphysics to ethics to logic. As a philosophy student, writing research papers is an integral part of developing critical thinking skills and engaging in philosophical debate. This paper will analyze a key philosophical issue by examining arguments from prominent philosophers on both sides of the debate. Specifically, this paper will discuss the philosophical problem of free will versus determinism.
Free Will versus Determinism Debate
The free will versus determinism debate centers around whether human actions are freely chosen or predetermined by prior causes. On one side of the debate are philosophers who defend the existence of free will. They believe that humans have the capacity for autonomous decision making and are not helplessly ruled by external or internal forces. On the other side are proponents of determinism who argue that every event or action, including human decision making and behavior, is causally determined by preceding events or factors.
Arguments for Free Will
One of the leading defenders of free will was Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that free will is a necessary precondition for morality. If all human actions are causally determined like events in the natural world, Kant argues, then the notions of moral responsibility, merit, and blame make no sense. Humans must possess some degree of freedom in their choices and actions to be considered morally accountable beings. Another argument Kant puts forth is that the very concepts of desire and choice require that alternatives be possible. If determinism is true and all future events are causally inevitable, then our present desires and choices are illusory (Kant, 1785/1993).
Contemporary philosopher Robert Kane expands on Kant’s arguments. Kane agrees that free will is required for moral responsibility but introduces the idea of “ultimate responsibility” (Kane, 1996). According to Kane, our actions are the result of complex causal factors both within and outside of our control. He argues we also have the power of self-formation over time through multiple decisions that shape our characters. While various factors may influence each choice we make, the long-term formation of our characters through numerous choices makes us ultimately responsible in a morally significant sense.
Arguments for Determinism
On the other side, philosophers who defend causal determinism provide compelling counterarguments against free will. For example, famous 18th century philosopher Baron d’Holbach argues that if humans have free will, that would imply the existence of an uncaused cause or causa sui within human minds, which he believes is a logical contradiction (d’Holbach, 1770/1972). Everything in nature, according to d’Holbach, is governed by causal laws, including human thought and behavior. To claim that free will exists would require that at least some human choices occur without sufficient causes or sufficient reasons. But d’Holbach argues such acausality is a metaphysical impossibility.
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century philosopher, echoes d’Holbach’s arguments in emphasizing the causal determination of all events, including human decision making (Hobbes, 1651/1994). Hobbes contends that free will is incompatible with the principle of causality which governs both the physical and psychological world. All thoughts arise from preceding thoughts and experiences according to causal laws of association. When combined with sufficient external causes like pressures, rewards, and punishments operating on the human mind, one specific thought or action becomes inevitable. Therefore, freedom of will is nothing but a fiction according to Hobbes.
Similar to Hobbes, 20th century philosopher Ted Honderich views all events, including conscious decisions, as being subject to a complete chain of prior causes (Honderich, 1993). Honderich notes, as did Hobbes, that human choices may be influenced by reasons and motives, but reasons alone do not break the causal chain. Certain choices may seem optional to the chooser, but in reality they are the necessary effects of influences leading up to them through causal laws. While Honderich acknowledges the existence of free will as a common belief, he nonetheless defends determinism from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience. Neural processes, he maintains, operate according to deterministic principles and reduce freedom of choice.
Responses to Compatibilism
In response to the apparent contradiction between free will and determinism, some philosophers have adopted compatibilist positions which aim to show the two concepts are compatible or reconcilable. According to compatibilism, freely willed actions can be both causally determined and free at the same time. Many compatibilists argue that freedom consists not in an absence of causes, but rather in actions that accord with one’s internal desires and character.
Both incompatibilist positions have presented strong objections to compatibilism. Robert Kane argues that compatibilism conflates different notions of freedom, namely, freedom of action with freedom of will (Kane, 2005). One can have freedom of action, Kane acknowledges, while still being causally determined if their choices are predictable based on their character. But freedom of will, according to Kane, requires that alternate choices be rationally possible such that the outcome is not inevitable or determined beforehand.
Similarly, David Wiggins criticizes compatibilist definitions of freedom that do not require alternative possibilities or agent control over the formation of their primary desires and character traits (Wiggins, 1973). On Wiggins’ view, compatibilism reduces freedom to mere hypothetical or explanatory possibility rather than robust agent control. Unless choices are independent of antecedent mechanical necessity in some sense, Wiggins argues that compatibilism does not preserve the intuitive meaning of freedom that is at stake in debates regarding moral responsibility.
Conclusion
The free will versus determinism debate raises profound questions about the very nature of human freedom, moral responsibility, and causality. Proponents of both free will and determinism present formidable arguments, and compatibilist attempts at reconciliation face serious objections as well. As with many philosophical problems, a consensus remains elusive. Exploring opposing views on this issue through the analyses of great thinkers affords deeper insight into the tensions underlying some of life’s most perplexing questions. Further philosophical examination and the continuing progress of science will perhaps move the discussion closer to resolution over time. Overall, the debate demonstrates philosophy’s vital role in grappling with fundamental aspects of human existence.
Andrew Stroud