Free will

Free will is the notion that human beings are able to choose between different courses of action in any given circumstance, whereas its opposite, determinism, claims that all our mental states and actions are made necessary by preceding causes, and we are therefore not free at all, although we may have the illusion thereof. These diametric extremes, on the one hand we always are in complete control, and on the other that we never are in control, unnecessarily restrict our options, an example of false dichotomy. Reality lies somewhere else, as it is abundantly clear that our actions can be dictated by factors outside our control and outside our awareness, but it is unclear that such factors are decisive in every instance or in the long run.

All of us have subjectively experienced being torn between doing one thing or another –what we would like to do, what we think we should do, or what we think others would appreciate our doing, and so on. We might assume that the decision is up to us, that we are free to do one thing or another, and others may heap blame or praise on us assuming the same thing. This assumption is what is meant by free will –the belief that whatever we may have done in actual fact, could have been otherwise because we might have decided on another course of action, and that before taking the action we were free to choose between alternatives.

At the same time, we realize that some aspects of the world work in ways that can be understood because there are law-like processes that can be deciphered, and that allow us to predict some future events based upon observations of past events. The principle operating here is that future events are governed by physical laws rooted in past events, and the notion that this kind of explanation applies to everything that happens is known as determinism. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not alter the viewpoint, inasmuch as random atomic events are not under our control any more than predetermined events. Determinism can be rewritten to include this randomness: All our decisions are either implied by past events, or by random events, that in both cases do not involve us as agents, but simply might be called happenings.

Some have argued that quantum reality opens a door onto a randomness of human behavior, which is also foreign to human experience. But if human behavior is random, then how can we make sense of the notion of moral responsibility?

If the world is deterministic, then human actions are either an exception to physical laws, or our feeling that we are free to decide what we like is simply an illusion. However, it is an exaggeration (at least at the moment) to think that science supports determinism.

We have trouble believing all our actions are determined, and that our sense of freedom is totally illusory, but we also have problems thinking that our actions are totally outside the realm of causality. The latter position would make our actions random, and this is not a palatable idea for most of us...

This dilemma born of idealized positions is what in philosophy is known as the problem of free will (or sometimes referred to by its flip-side as the dilemma of determinism), and it is a problem because whichever road one chooses to go down seems to lead to conclusions that we would have trouble accepting.

Incompatibilism

One way out of the dilemma, of course, is simply to accept the fact that human beings are not free, a position termed hard determinism or incompatibilism. To accept this position is to accept that our actions are caused by things other than our will –that actions do not originate in volition (willing), but rather in forces that determine its disposition in one way or another, a view often associated with stoicism. Hard determinism, however, insofar as it accepts a causal chain of events, means our present actions are determined in the past, and some consider that view to wholly destroy any notion of moral responsibility. Freedom is considered a necessary component of responsibility, for why should anyone be blamed or praised for actions that could not have been otherwise? (Stoics considered that an agent was responsible for thinking through their choices, even though the appearance of choice is illusory.)

Compatibilism

Another way out of the dilemma, has been to soften the requirements of what it means to be free. This position, also known as soft determinism, accepts the fact that actions have causes, but argues that this does not mean we are not free. I am still free, it is argued, if at the time in which I acted, and did whatever I did, I could have chosen to do otherwise, in the sense that nothing would have impeded me from doing so. That is to say, while my motives may strongly determine a course of action, they neither compel me to act in this way, nor do they stop me from doing something else if I choose to do so. Of course our freedom, understood in this way, is not the rather more arbitrary freedom we subjectively experience. It is only freedom in the sense of nothing would have stopped me if..., but one wonders just how meaningful the if has become at this stage. To quote Sam Harris: "A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings".

Libertarianism

If compatibilism's if I had chosen to do otherwise is considered meaningless once one accepts the determination of actions, then others have argued that the only way out of the dilemma is to accept that determinism is false, or that at the very least, human actions are a special case and stand outside the requirements of a deterministic universe. Saint Augustine held this view, the capacity for metaphysical freedom. Kant also subscribed to this view: besides nature and empirical knowledge, there is the realm of things in themselves accessible to thought and governed by different rules; a distinction between phenomena and noumena. At any given time, in this view, one is indeed free to choose between alternative courses of action.

Summary

The various notions of free will conflict, but involve many of the same elements. Their incompatibility appears to rest upon adoption of extreme positions in the interest of logical constructions, while reality appears not to observe these idealistic boundaries.