Free-will, or Libertarianism, by contrast, is the idea that we have complete moral responsibility and we are not compelled to act by outside forces as we follow our intuitions. Scientifically talking, the idea of freedom relates to the casualty of randomness. In other words, as opposed to the mechanical universe where everything thing follows from one event to another, here, events are completely random.
The debate of whether we really do have the freedom to act ethically is still significant today. Indeed, there are some modern theories and examples of Determinism that have emerged. Generally speaking, most scientistific theories are likely to view the determinist model as more accurate than the free-will one. Strict naturalistic determinists, such as B F Skinner, would argue that all human behaviour is controlled by genetic and environmental factors. All human choices are, thus, the result of prior causes. This can be problematic as it leads us to view human beings as perfectly controlled machines. It rules out the possibility of us having reason and acting according to it. Physical determinism lingers on the idea that our brain controls our actions and internal thinking and that, in turn, our brain is controlled by specific scientific and social laws to which it adjusts. Prof Haggard said: “We understand what brain areas are responsible for impulsive behaviour, and which bits are responsible for inhibiting that behaviour”. The way we think is affected by social factors. What about punishment then? In most societies acting againts the rules is deemed immoral and unethical. Killing someobody, for instance. There are individuals, however, who do not act according to the rules. Take for instance psychopaths; most serious criminals are either psychopaths or mildly so and are the perfect examples of individuals who commit crimes without feeling neither guilt nor shame. Researches argue that they do not possess the instinctive grasp of social obligations that other people have. This does not suggests that they have a higher ability to reason nor free-will but, actually, that they have a deficiency in the way their psychology works. This idea supports the mechanical and deterministic view of the world. It suggests that crime reults from machines that are deficient, taking all the responsibility away from the individual. As for the question of punishment, one may simply say: I was determined to act immorally.
There may be some truth in this naturalistic approach as we are clearly bound by natural laws – for instance the law of gravity. On the other hand, through reason human beings have been able to defy that law of gravity. Medieval thinkers, in particular, were inclined to think that human beings have free will through their reason. Aquinas, for one, believed that God gave reason to human beings and, ultimately, free will in choosing between right and wrong. Modern thinkers, however, have a much more radical approach. Freud was particularly despondent about the idea that man has the capability of rational decision making. By contrast, he argued that when someone is making a decision there are both social and biological factors which act upon him – determining his choice. What appears to us as relatively and objectively normal behaviour is, in fact, a result of someone’s ego and unconscious desires. Freud wrote that we are not “masters[s] of [our] own house”.
For modern psychology, however, the concept of free will is still very important for human beings – whether we truly have it or not is another question. The idea that reason might play an important part, as argued by Aquinas, may still be of great relevance today. Indeed, psychology denies free will but teaches that through therapy and thinking about our behaviour and emotions we all can achieve greater control over what we do and the way we think. In turn, this might lead us to change the way we act within society. The idea of determinism should not encourage individuals to think that every single action they make is outside their immediate control. This kind of thinking would lead people to commit all sorts of outrages and, then, simply justify them.
We have seen that the idea of self-control in psychology fits in with the secular view of taking responsabilities for one’s actions. Becoming a better person and a better citizen is still possible through an internal revolution in the way we think and act. In this sense, the idea of free-will is still significant, even though scientifically speaking not accurate. Schimmel argues that: “the determinist model is more scientifically useful than the free-will one in search of a better understanding of why we behave as we do” However, the idea of free-will encourages us to exercise self-esteem and self-control – which are primary skills in order to become ethically sensitive and good individuals. This way of reasoning supports free-will on an existential level. As Sartre would say, it suggests that freedom is ultimately the goal and measure of our lives.
To conclude with, I believe that the idea of free-will is too vague and unscientific to be able to explain how human behaviour and reasoning works. I agree that the deterministic model may be much more useful when analysing such questions. On the other hand, I also agree with Jean-Paul Sartre and his claim that freedom is a goal in itself. Whether we really have free-will or not is not so important as trying to achieve and developing as individuals. The idea of freedom is a stimulus to help us grow and gain control over our life and being.