free will and moral responsibility, the problem ofreconciling thebelief that people are morally responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not havefree will because their actions are causallydetermined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle.

Freedom and responsibility

Historically, most proposed solutions to the problem of free will andmoral responsibility have attempted to establish that humans do havefree will. But what does free will consist of? When people make decisions or perform actions, they usually feel as though they are choosing or acting freely. A person may decide, for example, to buy apples instead of oranges, to vacation in France rather than in Italy, or to call a sister in Nebraska instead of a brother in Florida. On the other hand, there are at least some situations in which people seem not to act freely, as when they are physically coerced or mentally or emotionally manipulated. One way to formalize the intuitive idea of free action is to say that people act freely if it is true that they could have acted otherwise. Buying apples is ordinarily a free action because in ordinary circumstances one can buy oranges instead; nothing forces one to buy apples or prevents one from buying oranges.

Yet the decisions people make are the result of their desires, and their desires are determined by their circumstances, past experiences, and psychological and personality traits—theirdispositions, tastes, temperaments, levels of intelligence, and so on. Circumstances, experiences, and traits in this sense are obviously the result of many factors outside the individual’s control, including upbringing and perhaps evengenetic makeup. If this is correct, then one’s actions may ultimately be no more the result of free will than one’seye colour is.

The existence of free will seems to be presupposed by the notion of moral responsibility. Most people would agree that one cannot be morally responsible for actions that one could not help but perform. Moreover, moral praise and blame, or reward andpunishment, seem to make sense only on the assumption that the agent in question is morally responsible. Theseconsiderations seem to imply a choice between two implausible alternatives: either (1) people have free will, in which case their actions are not determined by their circumstances, past experiences, and psychological and personality traits, or (2) people do not have free will, in which case they are never morally responsible for what they do. This dilemma is the problem of free will and moral responsibility.

Determinism

Determinism is the view that, given the state of the universe (the complete physical properties of all its parts) at a certain time and thelaws of nature operative in the universe at that time, the state of the universe at any subsequent time is completely determined. No subsequent state of the universe can be other than what it is. Since human actions, at anappropriate level of description, are part of the universe, it follows that humans cannot act otherwise than they do; free will is impossible. (It is important to distinguish determinism from merecausation. Determinism is not the thesis that every event has a cause, since causes do not always necessitate their effects. It is, rather, the thesis that every event is causally inevitable. If an event has occurred, then it is impossible that it could not have occurred, given the previous state of the universe and the laws of nature.)

Philosophers and scientists who believe that the universe is deterministic and that determinism is incompatible with free will are called “hard” determinists. Since moral responsibility seems to require free will, hard determinism implies that people are not morally responsible for their actions. Although the conclusion is stronglycounterintuitive, some hard determinists have insisted that the weight of philosophical argument requires that it be accepted. There is noalternative but to reform the intuitive beliefs in freedom and moral responsibility. Other hard determinists, acknowledging that such reform is scarcelyfeasible, hold that there may be social benefits to feeling and exhibiting moral emotions, even though the emotions themselves are based on a fiction. Such benefits are reason enough for holding fast to pre-philosophical beliefs about the existence of both free will and moral responsibility, according to these thinkers.

The extreme alternative to determinism is indeterminism, the view that at least some events have no deterministic cause but occur randomly, or by chance. Indeterminism is supported to some extent by research inquantum mechanics, which suggests that some events at thequantum level are in principle unpredictable (and therefore random).

Access for the whole family!

Bundle Britannica Premium and Kids for the ultimate resource destination.

Subscribe

Libertarianism

Philosophers and scientists who believe that the universe is indeterministic and that humans possess free will are known as “libertarians” (libertarianism in this sense is not to be confused with the school ofpolitical philosophy calledlibertarianism). Although it is possible to hold that the universe is indeterministic and that human actions are nevertheless determined, few contemporary philosophers defend this view.

Libertarianism isvulnerable to what is called the“intelligibility” objection. This objection points out that people can have no more control over a purely random action than they have over an action that is deterministically inevitable; in neither case does free will enter the picture. Hence, if human actions are indeterministic, free will does not exist.

The German Enlightenment philosopherImmanuel Kant (1724–1804), one of the earliest defenders of libertarianism, attempted to overcome the intelligibility objection, and thereby to make room for moral responsibility, by proposing a kind ofdualism inhuman nature. In hisCritique of Practical Reason (1788), Kant claimed that humans are free when their actions are governed byreason. Reason (what he sometimes called the “noumenal self”) is in some sense independent of the rest of the agent, allowing the agent to choose morally. Kant’s theory requires that reason be disconnected from the causal order in such a way as to be capable of choosing or acting on its own and, at the same time, that it be connected to the causal order in such a way as to be anintegral determinant of human actions. The details of Kant’s view have been the subject of much debate, and it remains unclear whether it iscoherent.

Although libertarianism was not popular among 19th-century philosophers, it enjoyed a revival in the mid-20th century. The most influential of the new libertarian accounts were the so-called“agent-causation” theories. First proposed by the American philosopherRoderick Chisholm (1916–99) in hisseminal paper “Human Freedom and the Self” (1964), these theories hold that free actions are caused by agents themselves rather than by some prior event or state of affairs. Although Chisholm’s theory preserves theintuition that the ultimate origin of an action—and thus the ultimate moral responsibility for it—lies with the agent, it does not explain the details or mechanism of agent-causation. Agent-causation is a primitive, unanalyzable notion; it cannot be reduced to anything more basic. Not surprisingly, many philosophers found Chisholm’s theory unsatisfactory. What is wanted, they objected, is a theory that explains what freedom is and how it is possible, not one that simply posits freedom. Agent-causation theories, they maintained, leave a blank space where an explanation ought to be.