Making choices seems to be an inherent aspect of human life.

We choose things

from what to eat for breakfast, to where we want to work to how we want to live our

lives; but what if we aren’t freely making these choices? The discussion of human free

will and determinism has been ongoing for thousands of years and continues just as

strongly today. There are three general beliefs about whether or not we are free:

determinism, compatibilism, and indeterminism will be further analyzed throughout this

essay. Although there may be some overlap between the theories, there are far more

differences which draws a hard line between them. In order to determine similarities,

differences, and stronger arguments, the different theories must first be outlined

Determinism is the belief that every event in the universe has a causal

relationship with the past and cannot go any other way than what was causally

determined, including human action. This theory is based on the fact that events in the

physical universe consistently show causal connection, with scientific exceptions at

subatomic levels, but generally accepted for the rest of the universe. Events in biology

also show causal connections, although the relationships are more complicated due to

the complexity and intricacy of the biological realm. Humans exist in the biological realm

and physical universe, implicating that all of our actions are also causally determined,

therefore eliminating the possibility of free will.1 Although it may feel like we have the

ability to choose freely, according to determinism, that is just an illusion; everything we

think, feel, and do is influenced by internal and external factors that are beyond our

control.2 Internal factors are those such as personal psychology, brain and body

1
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 163
2
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 165
chemistry, and genetics. External factors would be influences from our environment

such as society, relationships, physical barriers, etc.

Baron d’Holbach, a prominent determinist and materialist, defends free will on

the basis that humans are not exempt from the causal relationships of the physical

universe and biological realm. Baron describes living a determined life as such, “​Man’s

life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth,

without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant.”3 ​ He believed in

determined causation from internal and external events so strongly he uses the death of

Socrates, typically a tale used to prove the existence of free will, to prove the point.

Although it may have seemed like Socrates freely chose to be put to death when

confronted with the choice to leave, Baron says this isn’t the case describing internal

restraints such as:

“The invisible chains of opinion, the secret love of decorum, the inward respect for the
laws, even when they were iniquitous, the fear of tarnishing his glory…”4

To further address the issue of free will he refers to someone “choosing” to not drink

poisoned water although they are thirsty. He argues that the person isn’t choosing to not

drink it, rather they have an impulse not to drink it based on self preservation. The only

reason someone would choose to drink the water would be if they are emotionally

disturbed, not thinking clearly, or self destructive.5 Although determinists may have

logical ground to stand on, many are uncomfortable with the lack of the self

responsibility inherent in it.

3
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 164
4
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 168
5
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 167
 Compatibilism, or soft-determinism, looks to reconcile the idea of free will with

determinism, a seemingly contradictory task. Compatibilism does so by affirming that

every event in our universe is causally determined, but our actions may be free if they

are in accordance to our unconstrained natural desires, with no external restrictions.6

Although this viewpoint may seem no different than determinism because they both

maintain that everything is causally determined, it differs in the classification of freedom

and therefore personal responsibility. If actions that are uninhibited by external forces

are free then humans still have personal responsibility, enabling morality, personal

improvement, and societal improvement to still have value. Although there is value in

this theory, indeterminists and hard-determinists alike draw heavy criticisms that it is just

hard-determinism with makeup on.

Notable advocates for Compatibilism are David Hume, WT Stace, and R. E.

Hobart, all three of which believe the standard Compatibilism: if your choices are

uninhibited from external forces they are free. Mortice Schlick, reduces that level of

freedom by stating that actions are only “free” if they don’t act under compulsion on our

​ esires, placing internal limits on freedom in addition to external.

unimpeded ​rational d

Internal limits on freedom would be things that hinder normal function such as mental

illness, brain disease, or neuroses.7 Another alternative view of Compatibilism is from

Deniel C. Dennet, a materialist who approaches the issue of human free will

evolutionarily. Dennet agrees that the universe is causally determined but believes

human free will is ​“an evolved creation of human activity and beliefs, and it is just as

6
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 177
7
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 180
real as such other human creations as music and money, and even more valuable.”8

How does the compatibilist definition of freedom compare to that of indeterminism?

Indeterminism is the belief that choice, to some degree, can be independent of

causal relationships with internal and external events, making free will a possibility.9

Along with the ability to make choices comes the personal responsibility for those

choices, allowing concepts such as morality, self improvement, social improvement, and

religion to have purpose.10 William James, a strong proponent for indeterminism,

believes that the choice between determinism and indeterminism can be settled by

choosing the theory that has the most rational, complete, and persuasive understanding

of our lived experience. He provides a strong case for indeterminism with this

epistemological guideline, stating “​Our first act of freedom, if we are free, ought... to be

to affirm that we are free. . . .“, meaning that if free will does exist, it’s strongest

evidence is actively using it.11 According to James we are proving free will exists any

time we make a choice, regardless of how small it may be. He also advocates for

indeterminism by stating that in a deterministic universe it would be illogical to hope for

a better world or different outcomes, and would only be practical in a world with free

will.12 The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre took this even further, saying that all human

action is free and we must accept radical responsibility for everything we do, saying we

are “condemned to be totally free”.13

8
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 181
9
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 182
10
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 182
11
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 183
12
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 190
13
The Philosophers Way by Chaffee pg 192
 To further understand the three theories, they will be applied to the character

David from The Adjustment Bureau, who rides the same bus everyday in hopes of being

with the character Elise, contrary to what Fate has decided for him. In a deterministic

universe the choice to ride the bus was causally determined by external and internal

factors and therefore not free. In a compatibilist universe, although his choice was

causally determined it would have been free because he was acting on his desires

without external disruption, up until Fate began trying to externally get in the way. In the

indeterminist universe he was freely making the choice to ride the bus, regardless of

internal or external causation.

All three theories are similar in the aspect that they try to find the truth of whether

or not we are free, but that is the only similarity they all share. Determinism and

Compatibilism share similarities in the aspect that they both hold that the universe is

causally determined and all future events can and will happen in one way and cannot go

any other way. Compatibilism and Indeterminism share similarities in the aspect of

assigning personal responsibility to choices. Determinism and Indeterminism don’t

share any similarities, as free will can’t exist in an entirely deterministic universe. The

ability to have free will in a causally determined universe is a God-like exemption, which

doesn’t work with either Determinism or Compatibilism.

Indeterminism has the strongest case for me. This is because it still ascertains

that everything in the universe is causally determined, but it doesn’t remove personal

responsibility. It would only make sense that because humans are part of the physical

universe and biological realm, both of which adhere to causal relationships, that they
would also be subject to those relationships, however complex they may be. Human

beings want to conserve themselves, as most life forms do, and personal responsibility

is a way to do that. Part of human conservation is also the preservation of society, as

we are social creatures and often depend on each other to survive. If personal

responsibility, including morality, self improvement, and societal improvement, was

removed then it would be to the detriment of human society and therefore the individual.

The only thing that detracts from indeterminism is the personal experience of freely

making choices, which is compelling but also may be an evolutionary advantage for

human intelligence and diversity.

Although all three theories about whether or not we are free have strong, valid

points, it makes the most sense that we live in a causally determined universe with no

exception for humans. Despite human choice not being exempt from causal

relationships, personal responsibility is just as important as it would be if it wasn’t;

without it society would not have advanced to where it was today. Humans may not be

exempt from causal determinism, but this does not change how life feels, or the fact that

choices still need to be made so to continue living as though one is free is the best thing

one can do.