​

Definitions:

The term “free will” is generally defined by philosophers as “the ability of a person to choose between different courses of actions unimpeded” (1) or as “the ability to control one’s choices and actions” (2). These definitions assume two things: that the person had the ability to do otherwise, and that they were the source of their own action.

​

The freedom to do otherwise is an important aspect of free will because most free-will philosophers believe that an agent cannot be truly free if they have no options (2). This can be interpreted in two main ways. The simple conditional analysis of ability states that if a person had the desire, they could have chosen otherwise (2). The categorical analysis claims that a person has the ability to choose otherwise if it were possible to choose otherwise (2).

​

The second assumption of free will is that a person is the source of their own action. The most widely known model of source-hood as free will is seen in Frankfurt’s cases (3). An example of a Frankfurt case is that of a neurosurgeon who places a chip in someone’s head. That chip will only be activated when the person goes to the voting poll and will force them to vote for the democrat that is running. However, the person in whose brain the chip was placed had already made up their mind to vote for Clinton before heading to the poll. Frankfurt claims that because the choice to vote democrat came from the person themselves and not the chip, they have free will. Frankfurt believed that it is the way an action is brought about that matters, even if a person could not have done otherwise (3).

 

Main views:

There are three main views on free will: hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism.

​

Determinism is the idea that all events are caused by past events and the physical laws of the universe (4). The main concept of determinism is that everything is caused by some internal or external force, such as the state a person’s brain is in, everything that happened to that person in the past, or the environment they are in. Determinists believe that there is only one possible future path, and everything is just one continuous chain of events, the first cause being the Big Bang. Determinists believe that because people never have any real options, free will cannot exist, and therefore, people are not morally responsible for their actions (2).  

Soft determinist, also known as compatibilists, believe that, although everything that can happen has already been determined by the past, free will exists and people are morally responsible (4). Most compatibilists believe that source-hood is the only thing necessary for a person to have free will and that as long as a person’s desires and their actions match up, they acted freely (5). Frankfurt argues that there are different types of desires. A person has an instinctual will, which is the basic desire to do or not do something. A person’s will is whether or not they want to act on their instinctual will. If a person fulfills their instinctual will, this does not mean they are free, however if they act of their will to act on their instinctual will they have acted freely. Frankfurt claims that free will is more than the freedom to act for or against a desire, but also the freedom to want what they desire (5).

​

Incompatibilists believe that free will cannot exist at the same time as determinism. There are two types of incompatibilists: hard determinists and libertarians. Libertarians claim that because people are morally responsible for their actions, some actions must be chosen freely (2). Because some actions are freely chosen, determinism must be false. Libertarians also believe in a “garden of forking paths”, meaning that at any point in a person’s life, they have the ability to choose between multiple courses of action (4).

Some libertarians believe in event causation, the idea that every event is caused by a previous event, but also believe in agent causation, which is the concept that a person can start a new chain of causality that was not caused by anything else. Libertarians believe that a person can do something simply because they decided to do it, without that choice being affected by previous events in their life. However, many philosophers believe this idea is flawed because all ideas must come from somewhere. Libertarians also believe that we should not reject our own experiences so easily (2). Some philosophers claim that through observation and introspection, it is possible to recognize that some of the decisions that people make are chosen freely (6).

 

Moral Responsibility

The discussion of free will has played a big role in what it means to be morally responsible, and whether moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. When a person is morally responsible for an action, it means that they are accountable and therefore deserve either praise or blame for that action (2). However, it would only be fair to treat people this way only if they were in control of their actions. Therefore, people are only morally responsible for their actions if they have free will. Some philosophers reject the idea that free will is necessary for moral responsibility (5).

​

Another way to think about how moral responsibility is linked with free will is through the lens of control. As determinists have brought up, the activity of the brain controls a lot of the choices that people make. Philosopher Patricia Churchland brought up an interesting argument regarding how changes in “normal” brain states” can affect a person's actions (7). Churchland discusses the case of a man who, seemingly out of nowhere, began exhibiting pedophilic tendencies. Eventually, it was found out that he had a brain tumor in his frontal cortex. When the tumor was removed, his compulsions disappeared completely. According to a determinist point of view, the man is not responsible because his actions were controlled by his brain activity. Similarly, chemical properties of the brain control the way a person’s neurons fire, causing them to choose certain actions, which is not too different from the way the tumor controlled the actions of the man in Churchland’s case. However, Churchland believes that he is morally responsible, because he, like everyone else, possessed the ability to train his brain and develop control (7). Churchland holds that the stronger an agent’s control, the more freedom they have, and the more responsible they are for their actions.

 

​

​

​

1.