Free will
A biker performing a dirt jump illustrates how some interpretations view free will as the capacity to choose between different possible courses of action. Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue, which remains a major focus of philosophical debate to this day. The notion of compatibilist free will has been attributed to both Aristotle in the 4th century BCE and Epictetus in the 1st century CE. They argued that nothing hindered us from doing or choosing something made us have control over them. In contrast, Alexander of Aphrodisias in the 3rd century CE first identified incompatibilist free will. He claimed that what makes us have control is the fact that we are causally undetermined in our decision. The term liberum arbitrium entered Christian philosophy during the 4th century CE. It traditionally meant until the Enlightenment proposed its own meanings lack of necessity in human will. This requirement was universally embraced by both incompatibilists and compatibilists for centuries.
Hard determinists like d'Holbach accept determinism and reject free will entirely. Metaphysical libertarians such as Thomas Reid, Peter van Inwagen, and Robert Kane accept free will but deny determinism. They hold the view that some form of indeterminism is true. Hard incompatibilists argue that free will cannot exist whether the world is deterministic or not. Derk Pereboom defends hard incompatibilism identifying a variety of positions where free will is irrelevant to indeterminism or determinism. Carl Ginet formulated an argument in the 1960s known as the consequence argument. It states if determinism is true then we have no control over events of the past that determined our present state. Since we can have no control over these matters we also can have no control over their consequences. If everything someone does is caused by events outside their control they cannot be the ultimate cause of actions. Therefore they cannot have free will. Galen Strawson argues the notion of free will leads to an infinite regress and is therefore senseless. He claims man cannot create himself or his mental states ex nihilo.
Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action. They viewed one free of will simply if had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise one could have done so without physical impediment. Thomas Hobbes asserted no liberty can be inferred to the will but the liberty of the man which consisteth in doing what he has the will desire or inclination to doe. David Hume wrote this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Voltaire claimed Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will. Modern compatibilists like Harry Frankfurt argue free will is simply freely choosing to do what constraints allow one to do. A coerced agent's choices can still be free if such coercion coincides with the agent's personal intentions and desires. Daniel Dennett presents an argument for a compatibilist theory where because of chaos and epistemic limits on precision the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The ability to do otherwise only makes sense when dealing with expectations rather than some unknown future. Compatibilists maintain that determinism does not matter though they disagree among themselves about what in turn does matter.
The neuroscience of free will places restrictions on both compatibilist and incompatibilist conceptions. Cognitive naturalism stresses the role of neurological sciences in studying human cognition. Overall brain health substance dependence depression and various personality disorders clearly influence mental activity. An addict may experience a conscious desire to escape addiction but be unable to do so. The will becomes disconnected from the freedom to act due to abnormal production and distribution of dopamine in the brain. René Descartes held Cartesian dualism which claims the mind is a nonphysical substance distinct from physical states of the brain. Niels Bohr suggested there is no connection between indeterminism of nature and freedom of will despite quantum mechanics posing challenges to causal closure. Some argue consciousness plays a far smaller role in human life than Western culture has tended to believe. Solving the hard problem of consciousness involves determining how physiological processes such as ions flowing across nerve membranes cause us to have experiences. Observation may disturb the outcome rendering limited our ability to identify causality within neural correlates of choosing.
Omniscience implies the existence of destiny since it includes all future events. Strong theological determinism asserts everything that happens has been predestined by an omniscient omnipotent divinity. Weak theological determinism relies on divine foreknowledge where what God knows about the future will inevitably happen. This means consequently that the future is already fixed. Hard theological determinism is similar in implication to hard determinism although it does not invalidate compatibilist free will. Soft theological determinism claims humans have free will to choose their actions holding that God while knowing their actions before they happen does not affect the outcome. The basic argument for theological fatalism assumes divine foreknowledge infallible foreknowledge implies destiny which eliminates alternate possibility. Denying either libertarian free will or divine foreknowledge classifies this as theological incompatibilism. Boethius and Thomas Aquinas took approaches asserting differences in non-temporal knowledge space-time independence. C.S. Lewis also explored these concepts regarding omniscience and human choice.
Free will is closely linked to moral responsibility and moral desert praise culpability and other judgements. Traditionally only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Courts of law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will without bringing in metaphysics. Political liberty remains a non-metaphysical concept used daily by legal systems. William James believed instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on social business of punishment regardless of metaphysical theories. If one cannot do otherwise when one does an act one does not act freely according to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. Critics point out there is no certainty that conflicts will not arise even at higher-order levels of desire. The collective suicide led by Jim Jones illustrates how agents were not conscious their free will had been manipulated by external reasons. These examples show how theories influence judgments regarding blame punishment and ethical accountability in society.
Continue Browsing
Common questions
What is free will according to ancient Greek philosophy?
Ancient Greek philosophy identified free will as the capacity to choose between different possible courses of action. Aristotle in the 4th century BCE and Epictetus in the 1st century CE attributed compatibilist free will to this notion. They argued that nothing hindered us from doing or choosing something made us have control over them.
When did the term liberum arbitrium enter Christian philosophy?
The term liberum arbitrium entered Christian philosophy during the 4th century CE. It traditionally meant lack of necessity in human will until the Enlightenment proposed its own meanings. This requirement was universally embraced by both incompatibilists and compatibilists for centuries.
Who formulated the consequence argument about determinism in the 1960s?
Carl Ginet formulated an argument in the 1960s known as the consequence argument. It states if determinism is true then we have no control over events of the past that determined our present state. Since we can have no control over these matters we also can have no control over their consequences.
How does neuroscience affect conceptions of free will?
Neuroscience places restrictions on both compatibilist and incompatibilist conceptions of free will. Cognitive naturalism stresses the role of neurological sciences in studying human cognition. Overall brain health substance dependence depression and various personality disorders clearly influence mental activity.
What are the different types of theological determinism regarding free will?
Strong theological determinism asserts everything that happens has been predestined by an omniscient omnipotent divinity. Weak theological determinism relies on divine foreknowledge where what God knows about the future will inevitably happen. Soft theological determinism claims humans have free will to choose their actions holding that God while knowing their actions before they happen does not affect the outcome.