The idea that God will judge us according to how we live our lives and what options we freely choose, is to a certain extent the idea of social-conditioning. This idea, although it incorporates the idea free will removes God entirely, and argues that the decisions we make are due to the way in which we are conditioned growing up. This would include things such as your parents the way they acted and what they taught you as a child, because if as a child you are brought up by your parents to believe stealing is okay, you will believe that you can do so and although according to your own moral code you would be acting ethically, this is not actually the case. Many believe that by the age of seven, a child should know the difference between right and wrong, and so the first 7 years of a child’s life are arguably the most important, as it is these 7 years which will help shape what kind of person they will become; and what morals they will live by. In Catholicism, 7 years is the usual time that a child will experience their first confession and Holy Communion. We must however, when looking at this argument consider the fact that if we are to believe in Free Will, that a person no matter what their upbringing and social conditioning, has the freedom to turn away to not do bad things, whilst this may be more difficult for them if they have been brought up to know only bad acts, it is not impossible. This argument therefore also supports the idea that we have the freedom to act ethically, however recognises that there are external factors which can affect our moral decisions and ability to live ethically.
An alternative point of view is that of determinism. Whilst followers of Free Will believe that we are morally responsible for the actions that we carry out freely and deliberately, determinism holds the belief that there are laws of nature acting upon us, and it is these laws which govern everything which happens and that all out actions are a result of these laws. They believe that each of our actions and choices we make are determined by the situation immediately before it, and the one before that and so on. They believe that because of this, freedom of choice, freedom to act ethically is just an illusion, rendering personal responsibility a meaningless concept, along with the idea of blame and punishment. This however raises questions of guilt and why we still feel a sense of responsibility, for example if a man inevitably hit a girl who ran out in front of his car, whilst this is not his fault as it couldn’t have been avoided, he will still feel responsible for the incident. This criticism is answered in different ways; the idea of hard and soft determinism.
Firstly Hard determinism is the stricter of the two, it argues that all our actions had prior causes and that we are neither free nor responsible. It believes that we do not possess any free will at all and that it is in fact just an illusion; that if we are to commit a crime we are not morally responsible for that crime, as it was not our decision to commit it, it was just the result of a preceding action. One way in which we can explain hard determinism is by looking at the case of Mary Bell (1968), Mary Bell was 10 years old and lived in a deprived area of Newcastle with her single mother. Mary at the age of 10 murdered two children, the two and three year old sons of a neighbour. Referring back to what was afore mentioned about the age in which a child knows the difference between right and wrong, we cannot say that Mary didn’t know what she was doing was wrong, because at the age of 10 she should have been well aware of the fact murder is wrong. Whilst we can also say that according to the free will argument Mary had the ability to choose not to do it, if we look at this from a determinist point of view we can argue that her life was determined for her. If we follow this belief, she is therefore not to blame for these actions, nor is she morally responsible for them. Therefore this argument would hold the belief that a person does not have the freedom to act ethically because their life is determined and the decisions they believe they are making were determined to happen.
Soft determinism however, rejects the idea that free will and hard determinism are incompatible and argues that freedom is not only compatible with determinism but it requires it. Soft determinism or compatabilism say that some of our actions are determined but we are still morally responsible for them. They argue that there is confusion between determinism and fatalism when describing freedom of choice, that freedom of choice is not compatible with fatalism “whatever will be will be”, which says nobody can change the course of events. Soft determinists believe that all human actions are caused as if they weren’t they would be unpredictable and random, it can be seen in some ways as being determinism is the compatible with whatever sort of freedom necessary for moral responsibility. This argument also includes God, it believes that the force that determines your life is God and that from the moment you are born your life is planned out. However it believes that your life consists of major decisions, and for each of these decisions there is several choices, God knows all of these choices and the outcome of each one, however he doesn’t know which choice we are going to make, and therefore we still have the ability to choose freely.
In conclusion, there are many different idea concerning ethics and our ability to live ethically. Whilst it is possible as hard determinists would believe that freedom to choose is in fact an illusion and that the way in which we act has nothing to do with us, this argument seems cold and raises many questions about why we are alive in the first place, as well as raising problems with the idea of heaven and hell, because if we are not judged for our actions why should people who have done bad go to heaven just because it was determined they would when they were born. It seems that it is more likely that free will does exist whether we have total free will and ability to do whatever we choose or whether it is in some ways restricted in that we have limited choices such as that in soft determinism, it appears as though out ability to choose between right and wrong is out choice, and there for our responsibility.