Kelly Yan - Philosophy - Existence of Free Will

The notion of free will is widely accepted in the political field, where most voters are

willing to elect candidates who promote practicing free will. In ​Of Liberty and Necessity,

Thomas Hobbes describes the nature of free will a​s that “a free agent is he that can do if he

will and forbear if he will; and that liberty is the absence of external impediments (​Hobbes,

par.11)​.” In other words, if a person can choose to do one thing A or not do thing A by

his/her decision, that person possesses free will. Many philosophers praised free will as ideal

human power, yet views on whether free will actually exist vary by thinkers. This essay is to

discuss different philosophers’ views on the existence of free will.

Hard determinism, also called nomological determinism, believes in determinism,

which is considered incompatible with free will. Determinism means that every action is “the

inevitable result of preceding events and actions and the laws of nature (Caruso, par. 6).”

Therefore, humans actually have no control over their actions. For example, suppose a person

does not have an umbrella and it is raining. This person chooses not to go outside since

he/she does not want to get wet. Although this decision seems to reflect this person’s free

will, according to hard determinism, the decision to not go outside is in fact determined by

two preceding events: 1. The person does not have an umbrella. 2. It is raining. In ​Modern

Philosophy​, Baruch Spinoza questions the possibility of free will:” In the mind there is no

absolute, or free, will. The mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is

likewise determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so ad infinitum (Ariew

185).” As a supporter of naturalism, Spinoza believes that God is everything and that nature

itself is divine. Therefore, nature operates in absolute order with perfection. Since humans are

also part of nature, human actions must be determined by previous events. Freedom of will is

interpreted by Spinoza as indetermination, doing actions without a cause or reason. Such a

notion is criticized by Spinoza as “anti-natural, unjustifiable and absurd (​Lucero-Montaño,

3​).”

The strength of Spinoza’s arguments comes from rationalism, an epistemological

view holding that reason is the ultimate source of knowledge. If the reasons behind actions

are emphasized, free will is eventually incompatible with this reality. When it is reasonable to

stay at home while raining, that person actually has no freedom to choose whether he/she

should go outside, since that person needs to follow rationality to make a decision. However,

hard determinism receives doubts as knowledge of quantum physics increases. The

uncertainty principle states that as the position of a particle is determined precisely, the

momentum of this particle is calculated less precisely and vise versa. When the scale of the

world is lowered to particle levels, determinism is overturned and thus the incompatibility

between it and free will does not exist anymore.

In response to determinism, philosopher David Hume provided extricate reasoning of

compatibilism regarding the existence of free will, “a view that freedom and moral

responsibility can be reconciled with (causal) determinism (Russell, par.1).” Hume started

with distinguishing two kinds of liberty.

Few are capable of distinguishing betwixt the liberty of spontaneity, as it is call'd in

the schools, and the liberty of indifference; betwixt that which is oppos'd to violence,

and that which means a negation of necessity and causes (​Hume 188)​.

Hume points out that free actions should be classified as “liberty of spontaneity,”

actions that result from agents’ personal preference. When it is the agent’s desire that

determines his/her action, this agent is morally responsible for his/her actions. Thus, the

incompatibility between the necessary cause of action and moral responsibility does not exist.

For example, when a person chooses not to go outside when it is raining, it is his/her personal
desire of not wanting to get wet that determines this person’s actions. Therefore, this action is

considered by Hume morally free and responsible. In contrast, when an agent is compelled to

act by external forces (even if these external forces are the cause of the actions), this agent is

not responsible for his/her actions. For example, if an agent does not go outside because

he/she is locked in the home, this decision should not be considered as free will and this agent

is not morally responsible for staying at home. On the other hand, “liberty of indifference,”

“that which means a negation of necessity and causes,” is exactly what supporters of

determinism or libertarian would define as free will. However, actions without causes,

according to Hume, “is the very same thing with chance (​Hume 189).​” If the agent in the

example were to practice liberty of indifference, then he/she may roll a dice to decide

whether to go outside or not. In this case, this agent’s desire is ignored, thus not considered as

practicing freedom of will. Basically, Human logic is that it is unreasonable to attribute

responsibility to an agent when he/she does not cause it (in the example the cause is the count

of the dice). If we want to blame/praise an agent for his/her action, that action “must be

determined by the will of the agent (Russell, par.9).” This argument allows us to forgive

many seemingly immoral actions. For instance, a student who is late for class because of an

occasional car accident should not be blamed, since the car accident is not determined by the

student’s will or desire. ​Peter van Inwagen​ proposed consequence argument against

compatibilism. According to An Essay on Free Will, “If determinism is true, then our acts are

the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it's not up to us what

went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore,

the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us (​Van Inwagen,

par. 56​).” First, humans do not have control over the laws of nature. Second, previous events
and the laws of nature determine the future. Therefore, humans do not have power over the

future.

Immanuel Kant criticizes compatibilism for misunderstanding the notion of

“freedom.” Instead of limiting the definition of freedom to make to compatible with

determinism, Kant applies his two-world doctrine to settle the conflicts between freedom and

determinism. Causality is categorized by Kant into two types: one results from nature and one

result from freedom. The former states that every event or action has a natural cause in the

past, supported by natural laws. The latter implies that the cause originates from itself with no

natural antecedent. “But if we consider the very same actions in relation to reason... then we

find a rule and order that is entirely other than the natural order (​The Determinism and

Freedom Philosophy Website, par.1​).” Kant further points out that “these actions have

occurred not through empirical causes, no, but because they were determined by grounds of

reason (The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website, par.2).” Normal supporters of

determinism would claim that these two causalities are incompatible since one action could

not be caused by itself and external forces at the same time. However, Kant demonstrates that

such contradictory cause is mistaken. According to Kant, the world is divided into two

realms: the empirical realm and the intelligible realm. The former is things we perceive. The

second one is things themselves, which is what things are like when they exist independently.

Kant believes that natural laws could only be applied to the empirical realm. The intelligible

realm causes the empirical realm, which is in accordance with freedom. Therefore, free

actions are caused in two ways: 1. caused according to natural laws in the empirical world 2.

caused according to freedom in the intelligible realm. Kant’s argument is successful in

practical situations, helping us to judge immoral acts with a miserable agent behind. One

example that Kant puts forth is a criminal making a malicious lie. This lie is caused in two
ways. First, it is caused by the criminal’s miserable past and bad temper, which are in

accordance with natural laws in the empirical reality. Second, the lies are caused by the

criminal’s personal reasoning. It is the criminal’s reason that causes his/her crime. Therefore,

“in the moment when he lies, it is entirely his fault; hence reason, regardless of all empirical

conditions of the deed, is fully free, and this deed is to be attributed entirely to its failure to

act (​The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website, par.12​).” The weaknesses of Kant’s

argument may be that it is sometimes difficult to differentiate causes in accordance with

reason and causes in accordance with natural laws since Kant is assuming everyone is

capable of applying reasoning to make a decision. For example, if the criminal was

threatened by his/her parents’ lives to spread the lie, can we condemn this action because it is

the criminal’s free will?

In conclusion, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant each propose their view on the existence of

free will. Determinism emphasizes the incompatibility between that everything is determined

by past events and free actions. Compatibilism reconciles this conflict by limiting the

definition of freedom to actions caused by one’s desire. Kant opposes to compatibilism’s

approach to prove the existence of free will, connecting determinism and free will through his

two-world doctrine.
Works Cited

Ariew, Roger, and Eric Watkins. ​Modern Philosophy An Anthology of Primary Sources​.

Hackett Publishing Company, 2019.

Caruso, Gregg. “Skepticism About Moral Responsibility.” ​Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy,​ Stanford University, 18 Jan. 2018,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/.

Hobbes, Thomas. “Of Liberty and Necessity.” ​Thomas Hobbes - Of Liberty and Necessity​,

www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hobbes/of_liberty_and_nec

essity.html.

Hume, David. TREATISE ON HUMAN NATURE: Being an Attempt to Introduce the

Experimental Method of ... Reasoning into Moral Subjects. FORGOTTEN Books,

2016.

Lucero-Montaño, Alfredo. “SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM.”

LUCSEF-2, philarchive.org/archive/LUCSEF-2.

Russell, Paul. “Hume on Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford

University, 7 Oct. 2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/.

The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website. “IMMANUEL KANT: FOR

DETERMINISM IN A WAY AND ALSO INDETERMINISM, AND FOR

FREEDOM OF ORIGINATION BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE THE

DETERMINISM.” 620pixeltable, www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousKant.htm.

Van Inwagen, Peter. An Essay on Free Will. Clarendon Press, 2017, Google book,

books.google.com/books?id=JHqh3BQVBt4C.