Free will

[gL.edu] This article gathers contributions by Elena Schindler and Maria Botros, developed within the context of the Conceptual clarification about "Information, Knowledge and Philosophy", under the supervisión of J.M. Díaz Nafría.

Overview

This article deals with the superordinate term of 'Free Will', regarding the definition of the term itself, as well as the change of the meaning in a period of time and today’s society. The discussion includes an analysis of the contrasts between 'Free Will,' ''Determinism' and 'Compatibilism,' concepts that remain central to ongoing philosophical debates. These questions are not only theoretical but also deeply personal, as they require each individual to grapple with the extent of autonomy in decision-making. Interpreting the essence of free will requires careful consideration of whether human actions are truly autonomous or governed by external determinants. This exploration begins with precise definitions to eliminate ambiguity and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive analysis. Perspectives from influential philosophers, who dedicated their lives to unraveling this complex issue, are pivotal to understanding free will. Beyond philosophy, this article also examines the societal and cultural factors, such as moral responsibility, environmental influences, and religious frameworks, that shape how free will is perceived and exercised.

The structure of this article is designed to provide clarity and depth. It begins with an overview, followed by definitions that establish the foundational concepts. An introduction to the central debates is provided, along with a detailed comparison of philosophical perspectives. Finally, the article addresses broader issues that influence the discussion of free will and concludes with a synthesis of the key findings.

Definitions

Free Will

Basically 'Free Will' explains the ability to decide for yourself what actions will be carried out so more or less "a significant kind of control over one’s actions”, or doing something with 100% certainty. The first reaction of most people would probably be the thought that they control every decision in their life for themselves, but there are so many situations in life in which our subconscious decides on its own based on experience and routines. However that is not what ‘Free Will’ is, because we cannot fully control our subconsciousness. When was the last time you decided something just based only on your own will?

Some interpret free will more broadly, arguing that conviction in a decision—regardless of its origin—qualifies it as free will. This perspective underscores the plurality of interpretations surrounding the concept, making it impossible to restrict free will to a singular definition. To limit its meaning would negate the diversity of philosophical and scientific insights into human agency, overlooking how it evolves across contexts and disciplines.

Determinism

“Determinism is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature.”. This is the foundational premise of determinism, which asserts that every event, including human actions, is a consequence of preceding causes. Determinism, however, is not a monolith. It encompasses varying forms, such as 'Hard Determinism,' which denies free will outright, and 'Soft Determinism,' which integrates elements of choice within a deterministic framework. “A system’s being determined is different from its being predictable.” The definition of determinism is not everything already being a plan. No one is able to predict what an individual would do next and what is going to happen. It rather is a guideline that is automatically followed through our behavior.

For this discussion, the relevance of 'Hard' and 'Soft Determinism' cannot be overstated. While hard determinism aligns closely with incompatibilism, soft determinism forms the basis of compatibilist arguments, bridging the gap between causality and autonomy.

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is a compromise between the extremist opinions of free will and determinism. It describes that “the existence of free will in a possible world is compatible with that world being deterministic”. Compatibilism reframes free will as the capacity to act according to one’s desires, even if those desires arise from deterministic processes. This perspective challenges the dichotomy between autonomy and causality, suggesting that meaningful choice can coexist with inevitable influences.

For instance, compatibilism argues that while certain external factors dictate circumstances, individuals retain the ability to make decisions within those constraints. Consider how a person can exercise freedom within a structured environment, such as choosing a career path while influenced by societal expectations. These examples illustrate that free will does not necessitate absolute independence but rather operates through the alignment of internal motivations with external realities.

Introduction

'Free Will' is a topic that is well discussed in today’s society. While some individuals firmly believe that they make every decision independently, others are convinced that their choices are predetermined by factors beyond their control. These perspectives reflect the diverse and often conflicting opinions about free will, underscoring its complexity as a philosophical and practical concept.

Whatever opinion one has, it is important to know how one thinks about this topic and how one wants to live their life. Either you consciously live your life, choosing on your own, which way you want to go, or you let your life be led by determinism. But first one has to really understand what either of these terms means and, like always, it is important to listen to other opinions on this topic to get a good understanding of the question.

Free will is fundamentally a question about freedom, encompassing moral responsibility, the nature of human agency, autonomy, and more. If individuals possess the capacity to select their path in life, even within certain constraints, this counts as an exercise of freedom. However, the very existence of free will is challenged by determinism, which asserts that every event or state of affairs is causally determined by preceding conditions.

“Could we have free will even if determinism is true?” This question highlights the tension between these two concepts. Determinism posits that all actions are causally linked, while free will implies genuine choice. The inquiry does not seek to disprove determinism but instead asks whether free will can coexist with causality, preserving its meaningfulness within a deterministic framework.

Philosophers on ‘Free will’

Because “Freedom” is a topic that is well discussed in philosophy, free will is the next thought. And it is no surprise, that already in the early years there were many philosophers who discussed these topics. Some are positive that humanity is free and free will is definitely a part of our life or even manages our whole life and future. On the other side, there are also many who say our life is 100% controlled and not at all self-determined. These debates often explore how free will intersects with ethics, metaphysics, and human agency, providing a foundation for addressing questions about responsibility and the meaning of life. The following sections introduce key perspectives from influential philosophers, addressing both sides of the debate.

Spinoza

“In the mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the mind is determined to will this or that by a cause which is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity” (IIP48). This statement by Spinoza identifies him as a determinist. He claims that human choices are not made independently but are dictated by a chain of causes. Unlike conventional definitions of free will, Spinoza interprets will as the mind’s agreement or disagreement with ideas, rather than a fully autonomous decision-making faculty.

Spinoza perceives the mind as an idea of the body, controlled by it, while the body itself is influenced by external forces. Furthermore, his philosophical framework posits that all entities, including human beings, are part of a unified substance governed by natural laws. This contrasts with Cartesian dualism, where mind and body are distinct. For Spinoza, the interconnectedness of all things eliminates randomness from the universe. His concept of "conatus," or the innate drive of every being to persevere in its existence, highlights how choices arise from a natural order rather than independent will. Modern psychological theories about survival instincts echo Spinoza’s view, linking human behavior to intrinsic biological drives.

Descartes

Descartes is a very important philosopher when it comes to free will. He has spent a lot of time with the question whether a human being is free and how life works as it does. He is very specific in his terms of our own individual thoughts. “I find here that thought is an attribute that belongs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me.”; that is his statement concerning our thoughts. So, in Descartes’ definition we have the full power of thinking what we want to think. That is the very first step into being independent in our own will and choosing on our own. With that comes the ability to doubt, understand, conceive, affirm, deny, will, refuse, imagine, feel and many more thoughts and feelings.

This big philosopher also connects a lot to god; regarding our will, our thoughts, our being and even our science. “I conclude so certainly that god exists, and that my existence depends entirely on Him in every moment of my life” So that everything that is, that thinks and feels is dependent on god; regardless how independent we are, there is still this true power of knowledge that exceeds us. But still, in Descartes’ eyes, god is not everything, and we as human beings are something in between him and nothing.

Descartes argues that error arises when the will extends beyond what the intellect clearly and distinctly perceives. He asserts that the will is free and unlimited, whereas human understanding is finite. As soon as we know what is wrong and what is right, there is no difficulty to choosing, and there is more freedom in our will and our choices. Descartes is determined that we should make use of our free will, as we can, in denying or affirming to the situations in life.

A very important keynote of Descartes’ work is that the knowledge we have exceeds our will by far, and it should always be that way. When it is like that, we are truly free and decide on our own. So that, our will has to be led by clear and definite knowledge in order to be free; because true power lays in the knowledge we collect throughout our lives. Nevertheless, the substantiation of mind on one hand and body on the other posits the problem of how can the communicate between them since substance does not requires anything else to exist, what excludes the communication with other substance. Thus how the action of the body -or the res extensa in general- can be determined by the free will? This is the big metaphysical issue of the early Enlightenment to which Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Malebranche try to find different solutions offering different perspectives to the meaning of free will.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche’s perspective on free will diverges sharply from traditional frameworks. He denied the existence of free will, viewing it as an illusion constructed to impose moral and societal order. Nietzsche also rejected determinism, proposing instead a concept of self-determination that transcends these binaries. Freedom, in Nietzsche’s philosophy, is not found in independence from external forces but in the individual’s ability to overcome constraints and create personal meaning.

Central to Nietzsche’s philosophy is the "will to power," a concept that redefines freedom as the drive to assert and expand one's influence. This perspective challenges the notion of static autonomy, suggesting instead that freedom is dynamic, achieved through continuous growth and self-overcoming. Nietzsche’s critique of traditional morality ties directly to his rejection of free will, as he viewed moral systems as tools of control rather than reflections of genuine human agency.

Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre offers an existentialist perspective on free will. He argued that human existence comes before essence, meaning individuals define themselves through their choices and actions. Sartre famously stated, “Existence precedes essence,” asserting that humans are fundamentally free to choose their paths in life without predetermined essence or external constraints.

For Sartre, freedom also entails responsibility, as individuals are wholly accountable for the values and meanings they create. External influences may shape circumstances, but authentic choices remain within the individual's control. Sartre’s existentialist framework challenges deterministic views by emphasizing autonomy as a condition of existence rather than a product of external or internal causes.

Sartre’s existentialist view challenges deterministic ideas by suggesting that human freedom is absolute and irreversible. It rejects the notion that our paths are already decided or that external factors control our actions. Instead, Sartre emphasizes our radical freedom to shape our destinies through authentic choices.

Sartre also introduced the concept of "bad faith," a state in which individuals deny their freedom by conforming to societal expectations or external pressures. This self-deception, according to Sartre, limits authentic existence. Additionally, Sartre addressed the anxiety inherent in freedom, which he called "anguish," as it stems from the realization that every choice carries weight and responsibility. These ideas highlight the practical and psychological dimensions of free will in existentialist thought.

Cultural and Religious Perspectives

1. Christianity: Christian theology views free will an integral part of moral responsibility and personal accountability before God. It emphasizes individual choice within the framework of divine sovereignty, highlighting the importance of ethical decision-making and aligning one's actions with God's will. Free will serves as the foundation for moral agency, enabling individuals to discern between good and evil and to act in ways that reflect their faith. Through the exercise of free will, believers are called to make virtuous choices, fostering spiritual growth and adherence to divine guidance.Thus free will underscores moral agency and the call to make virtuous choices, contributing to spiritual growth and adherence to divine guidance.

Free will also plays a crucial role in the idea of salvation. In Catholicism, for example, individuals are seen as free to accept or reject God’s grace. This is most evident in practices like confession, where people actively choose to seek forgiveness and reconcile with God. On the other hand, Calvinist theology leans more heavily on the concept of predestination, suggesting that salvation is determined by God’s will rather than human choice. These differing views highlight the rich diversity of thought within Christianity when it comes to free will.

2. Buddhism: Buddhist philosophy interprets free will through karma, emphasizing intentional actions and ethical conduct as pivotal in shaping one's spiritual journey. It promotes mindfulness and ethical cultivation to transcend conditioned habits and progress towards enlightenment. Hence, free will is seen as crucial in breaking karmic cycles, fostering personal transformation, and contributing to interconnected cosmic harmony.

Free will in Buddhism is about making thoughtful, ethical decisions that align with compassion and self-discipline. This process not only transforms the individual but also contributes to harmony in the interconnected world. By choosing actions wisely, free will becomes a tool for breaking cycles of suffering and progressing toward enlightenment.

3. Islam: Islamic theology integrates free will with divine predestination (qadar), highlighting the balance between human choice and Allah's omniscience. While Allah knows everything that will happen, individuals are still responsible for their actions and are free to choose between right and wrong. This freedom is guided by the Quran and Hadith, which provide moral principles for ethical decision-making.

Free will in Islam emphasizes personal accountability and spiritual growth. By making choices that align with divine guidance, believers can fulfill their moral responsibilities and progress toward a closer relationship with Allah, all while understanding that their lives unfold within the framework of divine decree.

4. Secular Humanism: Secular humanism asserts human autonomy and moral agency without reliance on supernatural beliefs. It champions rational thought, empirical knowledge, and ethical reasoning as the foundation for both personal freedom and societal progress. In this worldview, free will is seen as essential to upholding human dignity and empowering individuals to make ethical decisions.

Free will is cherished not only as a personal right but also as a collective responsibility. Secular humanism advocates for the pursuit of shared values like justice, equality, and compassion, encouraging individuals to use their freedom to promote the common good. By prioritizing reason and collaboration, secular humanism fosters a vision of societal flourishing built on mutual respect and shared human values.

Issues related to Free Will

While free will is often seen as a powerful concept, it also raises significant challenges and considerations in practical and philosophical contexts. One critical aspect to explore is the societal implications if everyone were to live solely by the principle of free will. This raises questions about how conflicting wills can be reconciled when personal freedoms overlap. In such situations, determining which choices take precedence becomes complex, as there is no universal arbiter to resolve these clashes.

The exercise of free will is often limited by external factors, including societal norms, laws, and the power dynamics between individuals. These constraints reveal that free will is not absolute and must operate within a shared framework to avoid chaos. This issue is central to political philosophy, where thinkers like Rousseau offer solutions through the concept of the "general will."

Rousseau argued that individual freedom can coexist with collective governance when the general will—a shared expression of collective free will—is developed. This ensures that personal liberties are respected while promoting the common good.

Modern discussions around free will also touch on its intersection with social justice and equity. For instance, disparities in resources, opportunities, or systemic biases can restrict some individuals’ ability to exercise free will as fully as others. This highlights the importance of creating equitable conditions that allow everyone to make meaningful choices, ensuring that free will is not a privilege of the few but a right shared by all.Even if we have free will, there are some aspects that forces us into a kind of determinism. For example, our body, our basic needs. To stay alive we have to answer to the needs of our body. Even if we want to, we are not able to ignore our hunger, sleep, etc., so that we are prevented from using our ability of choosing on our own in certain situations. Furthermore there are also instincts like lust, revenge and more that we are able to control to a certain extent, but still, these are emotions that do not necessarily determine our doings, but definitely direct it.

The concept of will can also be interpreted with religious beliefs and God, just like Descartes did (look above in section “Descartes”). In this view, God’s will could be seen as aligning with one’s own will. There are two interpretations to consider. The first suggests that, by believing in God, individuals align their choices with divine will, thus exercising free will by choosing God. This approach frames free will as the conscious acceptance of divine guidance. The second interpretation, however, aligns God’s will with determinism, where human paths are predetermined by divine knowledge, leaving no room for change.

These interpretations show how free will and determinism are often intertwined in theological discussions. Many religious frameworks attempt to reconcile human freedom with divine omnipotence, highlighting the complexity of this relationship. Beyond these two paths, alternative perspectives on free will and determinism also deserve attention, particularly those that emphasize human agency within broader existential or spiritual frameworks.

Another important consideration is the uniqueness of every individual. It is impossible to offer one universal answer to the question of free will or determinism, as people have vastly different needs, beliefs, and worldviews. This is evident in the divergent opinions of major philosophers, who approached the same issue but arrived at different conclusions based on their unique philosophical systems.

For some individuals, the idea of absolute free will might feel overwhelming, as it places the full burden of decision-making on their shoulders. Others might find comfort in a more deterministic framework, where life’s path is guided or predestined. This diversity underscores the importance of accommodating varying perspectives and recognizing that free will, or the lack thereof, can be experienced differently depending on personal values, cultural influences, and philosophical inclinations.

Conclusion

The truth of the previously mentioned theses—whether there is free will or only determinism—is not something that can be uniformly decided for every perspective. Each person must reflect on their own beliefs and the principles they hold dear. Just as the philosophers discussed here offer a wide range of interpretations, so too do individuals find themselves situated along a spectrum—from firm belief in free will to an acceptance of determinism. Between these two extremes lies the space for compatibilism and other nuanced perspectives, each offering its own take on how freedom and causation intersect. Regardless of the differences in these views, it remains essential to approach opposing ideas with respect and an open mind.

While the understandings of these philosophers, and many others not mentioned here, are different, there is one thought that surpasses all judgments, considering the practical restriction of our knowledge and our system of beliefs: ultimately, if what is right and true is not aligned with what we believe, it is still our own true beliefs that holds greater importance. These own beliefs guides our lives, our decisions (whether deterministic or free), and consequently, our entire being.

Free will is not just a theoretical question; it intertwines deeply with practical and spiritual concerns. For some, religious faith offers a framework where free will aligns with divine guidance, while for others, secular values emphasize human rationality and individual agency. What remains consistent is the diversity of experience—no single perspective can encompass the complexity of human thought and behavior. The unique circumstances, challenges, and values of each person ensure that free will, determinism, and everything in between are experienced in profoundly personal ways.

Ultimately the question of free will usually cannot be answered in a simple way. It is not enough to say, "There is only free will," or "There is no free will." These statements fail to capture the layers of influence—philosophical, cultural, and scientific—that shape our understanding of freedom and choice. True engagement with this topic requires curiosity, reflection, and a willingness to embrace its complexity. By considering the nuances of free will, individuals can deepen their understanding of themselves, their actions, and their place in the world.