Understanding Free Will
Free Will has been common ground for both philosophy and psychology, being first
mentioned in ancient Greece by Aristotle and then during modern times in the mid 1950’s.
There was development between three different distinction’s Hard Determinism, Soft
Determinism, and Libertarianism. Hard Determinism is a view where all decisions made are
dictated by past activity and there’s complete absence of Free Will. Soft Determinism is a
philosophy where Free Will is not completely absent although past decisions impact your
decision making and therefore is a middle ground. Libertarianism is a belief where our
decisions are completely up to us, Free Will is completely present and we can freely choose
our actions and is a distinction held by most religions. Philosophers and psychologists
regularly debate and throughout this paper I will explain the philosophy held by many
experts and ultimately my beliefs and how these scholars have impacted me and my
philosophy of Free Will.
Scott Sehon (2016) explains a compatibilist account with free will and determinism, first
explaining that “without free will, our practices of criticism, punishment, praise, and reward
would be significantly changed”(pg.1) putting emphasis on the importance of free will and
the validity of opinion and debate. Compatibilist is the opinion of free will and determinism
can co-exist despite logical consistency. Compatibilism is an objective view on free will and
its distinctions. A simple quote to explain the typical opinion on free will and determinism is
“Certainly some non-philosophers appear to believe that the incompatibility of free will and
determinism is something so apparent that it hardly requires argument or mention” yet a
reference from McLeod (2013) “The idea of free will means that we are free to make up our
mind and that the resulting choices do not depend on causes preceding our decisionmaking” and Krueger (2010) “Free will, by definition, doesn’t have a definite cause”. Scott
Sehon’s example and use of these quotations explain the interconnection and compatibilist
view on free will as ultimately there’s evident reason for both determinism, free will and
their shared factors.
Jordan B Peterson (2017) a well-developed psychologist shares his opinion on free will,
explaining both determinism and libertarianism. Where he references that determinism
makes us a product of culture and nature, whereas libertarianism is a result of us humans
having destiny, choices and determining yourself despite one’s culture and nature. Jordan B
Peterson also extends this and creates an example of the judicial system, which follows a
libertarian perspective as it relies on the offender acting as a result of free will, instead of
the person being born to offend as a result of culture and nature. As a result, Jordan B
Peterson sets an example of society and how despite various opinions of free will, there are
still situations and predicaments such as the judicial system where we need to follow
libertarianism and determinism in others.
In my studies I found free will particularly interesting regarding religion. Free will is very
important to religion and particularly to Ted Peters (2019) a Christian who claims, “people
denying free will are materialistic, deterministic, reductionists arguing arbitrary
subjectiveness and self-interest, defaming and reducing free will and human behaviour”
(pg.149-153). Ted Peter sounds insulted personally by determinism as he explains how
divine freedom and human freedom both are interrelated, connected and an opinion which
separates the two fundamentally challenges religion. Ted Peters explains how important
free will is as it allows us to “love god in return, to assist in god’s work, to grow into divine
likeness” (pg.149-153).
Buddhism shares a completely different outlook on free will as according to Reppeti Rick
(Reppeti, R 2016 , Agentless Agency: Buddhists Perspectives on Free Will, pg.1-241, Viewed
27/11/2020), Buddhists aim to achieve spiritual enlightenment and “One can only be free if
one has freed oneself from the limitations of the self” (pg.134). Buddhists outlook on free
will is complicated and Reppeti explains it well in this quote “To summarise, Buddhists
resemble soft determinists when they proclaim that we are not coerced by gods or by caste.
They resemble hard determinists when it comes to wrongdoing, which is determined by the
three poisons. They are indeterminists with respect to selfless actions” (pg.139). Throughout
his article he explains the complexity and nuance surrounding Buddhism as a unique
outlook on free will.
The Medical Industry’s outlook on free will is complicated when it comes to patient’s
wellbeing. This article explains the free will and the decision making involved with patients
suffering a “broad range of clinical conditions that include various forms of dementia,
delirium, organic amnestic syndromes” as an example and many more. Explained as
Decision Making Criteria (DMC) is a diagnostic which encompasses at what point can the
patient no longer make their own decisions. Medicine and free will is separate to other
examples as it demonstrates the legality and balance between surgery, coma and people
who can longer make a decision for themselves as they do not meet the DMC. This is also
complex as you are fundamentally making an incredibly important decision for someone
who cannot otherwise make the decision for themselves, which is also a cause for such
necessary debate in such an impactful field and shows the extent of use around free will as
not only religious or personal, but also medical.
Mark Balaguar (Balaguar, M 2014, Free Will, pg.1-152, 27/11/202) is an indeterminist
regarding free will. He believes that we all have conscious choice and free will, yet he
acknowledges that people such as Daniel Wegnar (psychologist) and Sam Harris
(neuroscientist) refer to free will as an illusion. Mark Balaguar sets an example with free
will, explaining the difference between the two theories is black or white, there either is or
is not Free Will. Mark is opposed to the idea that we are all on a set path and dictated to.
Instead we have our own choices and decisions. Although science in this situation argued
against Mark, he also explains how he trusts science as a form of knowledge. This is his
remark and argument against the science around free will “Just because someone with a
PhD and a lab coat tells you that science has established some nutty conclusion doesn’t
mean it’s really true” (pg.13).
Gregg D. Caruso (Caruso, G D. C 2012, ‘A Determinist Account on the Illusion of Free Will’,
Free Will and Consciousness,pg,1-259, 27/11/2020) explains free will and this analogy
explains determinism and libertarianism in a concise and effective manner. “Voluntary
actions are freely chosen” compared to a more “radical view, however, maintains that our
best scientific theories have the consequence that factors beyond our control produce all
the actions we perform” (pg.13). Greggs argument is placed on phenomenology which is a
study of consciousness, the example he provides is “By sense of agency I mean the reflexive
feeling that ,’I control my actions when I reach out to pick up this coffee, I feel as though it is
I (my-self) who does so. I am conscious both action and myself as the cause of the action.
The phenomenology of agency therefore includes an experience of self-as-cause or self-asinitiator” This explanation and the study of phenomenology and the connections between
physical and mental is a separate and unique outlook on the form of free will and
determinism, and the understanding of self and our relation to free will.
Michael Frede explains a nihilistic (Michael Frede, A. A. Long, and David Sedley, 2011,
Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought, A Free Will, vol.68, pg.1-118, viewed 27/11/2020)
explains the history and development of free will over the ages. During 200 A.D there was
talk about the notions of free will and as Michael Frede says “whether we have a will which
actually is free depends on our not enslaving ourselves to the world and that way giving the
world, and the powers and forces which govern the world, power over us, power even our
choices and decisions” (pg.102) which is an explanation of the nature of ‘power’ and our
power to create our own decisions or whether we are slave to this world and the world has
power over us. Frede also quotes and explains Plotinus and his nihilistic view on free will
which is quite simply “we might be nothing” and have no control over our life.
After this extensive research and for many reasons I am a compatibilist, the idea that
determinism or free will cannot exist together is close minded. As an example, our medical
and judicial system rely on free will and libertarianism to carry out actions. In a hospital
scenario it is the patient’s choice, yet in situations where their decision-making criteria
(DMC) the staff will make the choice for them. We also rely on free will and libertarianism in
instances in the judicial system where penalties apply strictly from their free will and not the
prior influencing factors. So, although determinism and libertarianism are often conflicted,
they share factors and compatibilism allowed you to understand where they interlap. So as
humans we are free to make our decisions, yet our past experiences can dictate and
influence our otherwise ‘free’ action.
Bibliography
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2019.1596215
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0371-0
https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/reader.action?docID=4616045
https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/reader.action?docID=3339742
https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/reader.action?docID=902596
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIDXNvMWCU
https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/reader.action?docID=3339095
https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/reader.action?docID=631055&query=
https://oxford-universitypressscholarshipcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198758495.001.0001/acprof9780198758495
