The Dilemma of Human Agency
Do we choose our actions, or are we simply complex biological machines following the laws of physics? This is the problem of Free Will. On one hand, we feel like we are the “authors” of our lives. When you chose to read this lesson, it felt like a free choice. On the other hand, science suggests that every event in the universe is caused by prior events. If our brains are physical systems, then our choices must also be caused by prior events—our genetics, our upbringing, and the chemical state of our neurons.
The Challenge of Determinism
Determinism is the view that every event, including human action, is the inevitable result of preceding events and the laws of nature. If you knew the position and velocity of every atom in the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, you could (theoretically) predict everything that would ever happen, including what you will have for breakfast tomorrow.
Hard Determinism
Hard determinists accept that the world is deterministic and conclude that free will is an illusion. If our “choices” are just the result of a chain of causality reaching back before we were born, then we could not have done otherwise. And if we could not have done otherwise, we are not truly free.
Libertarianism (Not the Political Kind)
Philosophical Libertarianism is the view that determinism is false and that humans do possess free will. Libertarians argue that while the physical world might be deterministic, the human mind (or “agent”) has a special power to initiate new chains of causality.
- Agent Causation: The idea that an agent can start a new event without that start being determined by prior events.
- The Argument from Experience: The feeling of making a choice is so fundamental to human life that it is more likely that our scientific theories are incomplete than that our core experience of agency is a total lie.
- Quantum Indeterminacy: Some point to quantum mechanics, where events occur with probability rather than certainty, as a potential “gap” where free will might exist. (Critics argue that “randomness” is not the same thing as “freedom”).
Compatibilism (Soft Determinism)
Most modern philosophers fall into the camp of Compatibilism. They argue that free will and determinism are not actually in conflict. The confusion stems from a misunderstanding of what “freedom” means.
Compatibilists redefine freedom: You are free if you are acting according to your own desires and intentions, without external coercion.
- Unfree: Someone pushes you out of a chair. (External cause).
- Free: You decide to get up from the chair because you are thirsty. (Internal cause).
Even if your desire for water was “determined” by your biology, you are still “free” because the action originated from your self, not from someone forcing you.
Incompatibilism and the Consequence Argument
Incompatibilists (both hard determinists and libertarians) reject the compatibilist compromise. Peter van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” is a famous critique:
- If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past.
- It is not up to us what went on before we were born.
- It is not up to us what the laws of nature are.
- Therefore, the consequences of these things (our present acts) are not up to us.
The Moral Implications
The free will debate is not just academic; it is the foundation of our legal and moral systems.
- Moral Responsibility: If a person’s actions are determined, can we truly blame or praise them? If a murderer was “destined” to kill by their genes and a traumatic childhood, is “punishment” (in the sense of retribution) fair?
- Praise and Blame: We don’t blame a storm for causing damage, because a storm doesn’t have a choice. If humans don’t have choices, are we no different from storms?
Most philosophers argue that even if hard determinism were true, we would still need a legal system for deterrence and rehabilitation, but the concept of “just deserts” (people getting what they “deserve”) would lose its meaning.
Conclusion: The Persistent Mystery
We seem to be stuck in a paradox: we cannot find a place for free will in the scientific description of the world, yet we cannot live our lives without assuming we have it. Whether we are “free agents” or “clocks following a complex script,” our struggle to understand our own agency remains central to the human condition.