Freewill is the doctrine that human choices are not predetermined, we are self-determined, not (ultimately) subject to forces outside of our control - it means, we could have done otherwise. Freewill comprises choices not caused by, and independent of antecedent factors. Freewill tries to account for is our introspective conviction that we are in control of many of our choices, and thus our destiny - that we are free to think and decide. We contrast this flexible, conscious control that we enjoy with the involuntary action of, say, our heartbeat or digestion, and with the instinctual imperative of a bird's nest-building or a dog's conditioned response. Our decisions are far more independent of nature and nurture than any animals; we are aware of our ability to think and of the consequences of our choices - we can claim responsibility for our actions. These are the meaningful differences that give rise to the concept of freewill.
God is said to be capable of acting in the world only through persuasion, and not by coercion. God makes Himself manifest in the world through inspiration and the of , and not by or violations of . God relinquishes his omnipotence, in order that humanity might have absolute .
We must understand that in Ethics, there are three main types of determinism; hard determinism, soft determinism and libertarianism. If one acquires a hard determinist approach one believes we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Hard determinism takes a number of forms, particularly biological, psychological, and sociological determinism. We are fated by either our biological inheritance, early childhood effects on our psychological being, or the particular social environment we were unfortunately born into. Socio-economic, religio-cultural backgrounds and experience of life may affect us in such a way that our behaviour is determined rather than free. Thus, if everything is predetermined does that mean we are left without any moral responsibility and give the murderer free scope to kill his victim without suffering any consequences? Rationally we recognise that there are things which human beings can influence for good or bad even though they cannot control certain circumstances. Hard determinists are the people who are most likely to agree with the statement “It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill.” Christians believe in predestination. They believe that we are all sinners and therefore deserve to go to hell but they know that God has chosen a few to be saved, who will thus go to heaven.
and other have held to a form of theological and , and thus have denied that man possesses in the sense. So for them the problem of evil could not find resolution in appeals to such freedom. For them, the issue had to be resolved within the very nature of the relationship itself. For God to hold man morally accountable, yet to everything that man thinks or does, something other than the "freedom of contraries" must ground this accountability. Calvinists believe that this something is the capacity of man to choose and act according to his moral state of being, the "freedom of choice".
Soft determinism takes a moderate position between the two extremes of determinism, hard determinism and libertarianism. Soft determinists believe that human beings do control a significant portion of their behaviour, while they are limited in the choices they can make by lack of knowledge, quality of parenting, biological predispositions and economic circumstances. A socio-economic disadvantaged child, raised by an inadequate parent, attending an under funded urban school, in a neighbourhood with few job opportunities has many fewer choices than does a child born into the upper class with all the benefits and privileges such standing accords. However, many kids in a disadvantaged neighbourhood will choose not to join gangs or become involved in delinquent behaviour. Many will create better lives for themselves and their children. If one adopts a soft determinist approach one believes some aspects of human beings are determined, but we are also morally responsible for our actions. Soft determinism doesn’t rule out free will, the freedom to act is acting voluntarily and not out of coercion. Soft determinists are criticised by hard determinists for failing to realise the extent to which human freedom is limited, and by libertarians for failing to realise the degree of human freedom that exists. Soft determinists have not yet agreed on precisely what is and what isn’t a determining factor in human action so it can become somewhat confusing. Consequently, soft determinists would say that the statement “It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill” is false as they believe they are partially free as they have the freedom to act but also know they are restricted to the choices they are able to make due to being deficient in some understanding.
If one takes a libertarian approach, one believes we are free and morally responsible for our actions as human beings have self-determination or freedom to act. A Scottish philosopher called David Hume said “By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will: that is, if we choose to remain at rest; we may; if we chose to move, we also may.” Thus moral actions are not chance or random events, but result from the values and character of the moral agent. Some people may give into temptation, while others hold out as they have the freedom to do so. However the big question for libertarianism is how much moral responsibility and freewill do autonomous moral agents have in reality? Libertarians find it very difficult to argue with the laws of physics and the laws of randomness be it physical randomness such as natural disasters or human randomness such as mental illness or the effects of dictators who impose their “values” on a victimised society, for example Hitler. Libertarians would disagree with the statement “It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill” because they believe we have the freedom to act and have moral responsibility. We are free to make our own choices and decisions.
If we accept the hard determinist argument and assume human behaviour as a consequence of external factors rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behaviour leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? Life would not be so meaningful for people on deterministic grounds. Human life, as we know it, would not make much sense without the concept of freedom. In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what we are going to eat for breakfast, or where we are going to walk. When we talk or write, we are deciding on the arrangement of our thoughts, and we have to search for the right expressions. Our life, while we are awake and active, is a mixture of important and unimportant choices.
Having freewill means that we are able to act voluntarily, that we could have decided to act differently than we did. When someone is criticised for looking sloppy, or making an offensive remark, he may try to excuse himself with an "I could not help it" remark. But if he is a normal person mentally, then he could have helped it; he could have acted differently. Many people reject determinism on the grounds that there is no free choice. Philosophers against determinism appeal to direct experience to provide evidence of the existence of free choice. Feelings which we all have, such as regret or remorse, make no sense unless there is free will. People experience regret or sorrow only because they believe they could have done otherwise. If hard determinism were true, then people could never have done otherwise and there should be no reason to feel any regret. A determinist may argue that human behaviour is caused by environmental conditions, general trends, circumstances, and social economic forces beyond human effort and will.
Determinists state that people believe they are free only because they're ignorant of the causes of their actions. They make that point when they say that we are deceived in thinking ourselves free, a belief that consists of the causes by which they are determined. All of this philosophy reflects the deterministic view that we are not free to change the world because we are all part of a grand causal chain, but this philosophy also claims the idea that if we accept determinism, we free ourselves from ignorance and emotional servitude. And thus, if a person has the capacity to free himself from the burden of ignorance and emotional impulses and come to agree with determinism, then this would seem to be a very significant type of freedom. So it can be concluded that determinists are saying something absurd or that they understood the reality and value of freedom.
Human experience over the course of history does rely itself on freedom. If determinism is true, why should people bother deliberating about what to do or deciding and choose seriously? Everyone's thought and action must be inevitable; nobody really has any choice about anything because we are all helpless products of blind forces, which have made us what we are. Therefore, whatever is determined to happen is going to happen as though a person's biography was written before he or she was born.
I personally take the soft determinist view, that we do have a certain amount of freedom (as well as moral responsibility) but we can not always be sure how much we actually have. When I consider a case such as Diane Pretty, who suffered from motor neurone disease and wanted the assistance of a doctor to help her die because her quality of life was at such a poor stage where she was unable to communicate with her family, in a wheelchair, catheterised and fed through a tube, I believe this is a situation where a person should be able to have the freedom to make a decision. Euthanasia is a massive dilemma as it is against the law in the UK, and any doctor who helps a terminally ill adult to die is open to a charge of murder. Thus doctors do not have the ability to assist terminally ill patients in their ‘freewill’ decision. I believe adults should have the freedom to make such choices in life, such as euthanasia, although I am aware of the reality that it will never be as simple.
To finally conclude, in this essay I have outlined that it is possible to reconcile two kinds of determinism with the concept of freewill, soft determinism and libertarianism. This is because, on the whole they take into account the authenticity that humans do have the freedom to make their own decisions in their lives. However some soft determinists and libertarians are not confident as to how much freedom they have. They do not know to what extent they can use the concept of freewill. Alternatively some Christians may believe that God has already planned out their lives. He knows what will happen next and what choices they will make whether it is what top to wear or whether or not to have an abortion. This hard deterministic approach means that Christians may not believe in freewill as their lives are predetermined, not allowing them to make their own choices. This is not believed by all Christians though, and non-Christians may also agree with this hard deterministic approach.
