1
A2 Ethics: Unit One
Free Will and Determinism
(Second Edition)
Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold talking during their trial.
What you need to know about on this topic:




Free will and determinism.
The views of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ determinists and libertarians.
The implications of these for moral responsibility.
The way in which the religion studied (Christianity) contributes to
debates about human free will and moral responsibility.
2
Books used in putting together this revision/course
booklet:







‘Ethical Studies’ by R. A. Bowie
‘Moral Problems’ by M. Palmer
‘Moral Problems In Medicine’ by M. Palmer
‘Ethics & Religion’ by J. Jenkins
‘Ethical Theory’ by M. Thompson
‘The Puzzle Of God’ by P. Vardy
‘Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong’ by J. L Mackie


KEY TERMINOLOGY

Autonomous/Autonomy/Free Will: Self-rule or self-government. The
term is made up of ‘autos’ meaning ‘self’ and ‘nomos’ meaning ‘rule’. Many
philosophers, such as Kant, hold that you can only be responsible for actions
that you undertake of your own will. This is opposed to:

Determinism: The belief that choices are influenced by factors other than
the will of the individual. (In other words events/actions are predetermined by
other events therefore freedom of choice is an illusion.)

Hard Determinism: The belief that people do not have free will to act in
moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes.
Humans therefore cannot be morally blameworthy for their actions because
their actions are determined.

Libertarianism: The belief that humans are free to make moral choices and
are therefore morally responsible.

Liberty: freedom

Moral Responsibility: our blameworthiness or praiseworthiness for actions.

Predestination: The belief that God has decided who will and will not enter
heaven.

Soft Determinism: The belief that some actions are determined but we
still have moral responsibility.
3
INTRODUCTION
There exists an important relationship between freedom and moral responsibility,
as it is commonly believed that we should be morally responsible for actions,
which are freely performed. Most would agree that we should accept the blame
for the things we freely do wrong. If I walked into a supermarket and freely
stole money from the cashier I should accept the blame for doing this since I did
so freely. If however, I am FORCED to commit an immoral act then I am not
blameworthy. (If I stole the money because someone held a gun to my head then
I am not blameworthy.)
In the same way, if I gave freely to a charity then I am worthy of praise but if I
am forced to give money to charity then I am not praiseworthy. We can only give
moral blame or praise to actions, which are freely undertaken. Our society and
individuals within our society commonly hold this view.
Praise and blame, according to Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in ‘Nicomachean Ethics’
are commonly confined to voluntary actions, whilst actions are made nonvoluntary by compulsion or ignorance.
If in ignorance, I perform an action that has an unpredictable immoral effect,
then again, in most cases, I am not blameworthy. If a teacher was to take a
group of pupils on a visit to an area which he/she believes to be safe, they are
not blameworthy if there is a sudden bombing in that area, assuming that they
could not have known what was going to happen. On the other hand, if the
teacher sends the pupils on the visit knowing there could be a risk in the area, or
does not make appropriate checks then they WOULD be blameworthy, indeed
they would be incompetent!
Furthermore, if a person is not in control of their actions because of drug abuse
or another disorientating influence, such as a severe emotional trauma, then that
person is not entirely responsible for their actions. The drunk who kills a
pedestrian may be morally blameworthy, but he has not committed as great a
crime as a sober person who deliberately runs down an innocent pedestrian,
because the person’s INTENTION is important.
4
This can become a little more complicated the more you delve. For example, if I
was spiked in a bar and in a disorientated state hit a pedestrian whilst driving
home, then I am attributed less blame than the drunk and the sober person who
committed the same crime. The law punishes criminals who intend to commit
their crimes more heavily than those who commit unplanned crimes. The
questions: ‘Did they mean to kill or was it an accident?’ and ‘Was it
premeditated?’ come into the law courts often.
If we can only blame or praise people for actions which they freely and knowingly
undertake then it is vital that human beings have freedom to act. Morality
depends upon freedom. We cannot blame a person for not doing what they could
not do. If human actions are caused by external influences, then people cannot
be morally responsible for their actions.
Look at the following 5 situations, which I have taken from R. Bowie’s
‘Ethical Studies’ and consider the following:
 In which situation is the policeman the most and least
blameworthy?
 Is the policeman morally responsible for the death of
the civilian in each case?
 Should there be any difference in the way the
policeman is punished and why?
1. A policeman, who is a poor shot, shoots dead an innocent civilian by
mistake.
2. A policeman intentionally shoots dead an innocent civilian.
3. A policeman, hallucinating after unintentionally taking drugs, shoots
dead an innocent civilian.
4. A policeman, believing it is his duty to obey the orders of the state, is
commanded to shoot dead an innocent civilian and does so.
5. A policeman, threatened with execution if he does not obey orders, is
commanded to shoot dead an innocent civilian and does so.
5
The theory of determinism states that every event has a cause. The question
raised by this theory is whether we as human beings possess free will. If we do
not possess free will then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.
If this were the case then morality really would become meaningless.
You will remember Kant’s famous words of ‘ought implies can’. A moral situation
is one in which an individual can choose a particular course of action. A non –
moral situation therefore is one in which an individual has no choice, or more
frequently has the choice dictated to them by something (or someone) over which
they have no control. I am not to blame if I cannot breathe underwater, it being
physically impossible, nor am I to blame if I am forced to commit a crime at
gunpoint. In this case the law courts would recognise that I am, in a special
sense, less free than the normal citizen and sentences are adjusted accordingly.
(Think of how many times on law programmes you have seen people who have
pleaded ‘insanity’ or have ‘diminished responsibility’).
What if we could show that ALL human actions are caused by things outside
of our control?
It is this question, which raises the philosophical and ethical problem of
determinism and free will. People certainly behave as if they were free, as if
they had a real series of choices open to them and nowhere is this more apparent
than when we make moral decisions. We frequently ‘choose’ between two or more
courses of action and weigh up the options. But suppose this is not the case?
Suppose that behind these choices lies a whole range of other things, which
compel us to act in the way we do. In that case we should have to conclude that
none of us is free, none of us responsible for our own actions and that moral
decision-making is an illusion. In all matters of human choice, so the argument
runs, a man cannot choose to do what he ought to do but rather does what he
must.
Philosophers have reacted to this problem in a variety of ways. First there are
so called hard determinists, who accept determinism and therefore reject
freedom and moral responsibility. Then there are so called libertarians, who
accept freedom and moral responsibility and therefore reject determinism. Then
6
there’s the group in the middle of these who argue that determinism is essential
to the notion of free will. These are called soft determinists or compatibilists.
For two hundred years up until about 1900 science maintained a rigid determinism
and a belief in universal causation, which rejected free will as it rejected
miracles. It saw all observable events as being subject to scientific law and
therefore completely predictable.
You may ask the question, ‘what exactly does it mean to have free will?’ Well to
have free will at least two conditions must apply:
1. We must have two or more possibilities ‘genuinely’ open to us when we are
faced with a choice and
2. Our choice must not be forced.
The concept of free will plays a vital part in our thinking about the world,
particularly in attributing blame and praise and in finding others ‘morally
responsible’ for what they have done. We generally do not hold others
responsible for their actions when they are:
1. Under the influence of powerful medication having unexpected
psychological side effects.
2. Very young people who are unable to foresee the consequences of their
actions.
3. People who are delirious.
4. People who are forced into an action.
The list has grown considerable over the years. Recently in a court case a man
was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during
the killing.
Hmm, I wonder, what
caused me to pick up
this piece of paper?
7
PREDESTINATION
(CHRISTIANITY)
The traditional Jewish and Christian view is that human beings are free,
autonomous agents who are responsible for their own actions. In Genesis for
example, Adam and Eve exercise free will in choosing to eat the forbidden fruit.
They are then held responsible for their actions and punished by God. Eve to
bear pain in childbirth and Adam to toil.
St Thomas Aquinas, the Christian theologian (1224-1274) in ‘Summa Theologica’
wrote ‘…man chooses not of necessity but freely’. The main Christian
denominations also hold the view that we are free to do good or sin.
There also exists however, within Christianity the view of predestination. This
idea originates in St Paul’s letter to the Romans where it states,
‘We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been
called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be
conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brothers. And those predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified;
those he justified, he also glorified’ (Romans 8: 28-30 – NIV)
This clearly states that God has already decided who will be saved and who will
not, suggesting that humans are not free to secure salvation. This view is held by
SOME Protestant Churches. The belief has strong support from several
Christian groups, and remains one of the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of
England:
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the
foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to
us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of
mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.
(Article 17, Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer)
8
The Protestant reformer, John Calvin (1506-1564) described predestination in
his work ‘Institutes’ as,
‘The eternal decree of God, by which he determined that he wished to make every man.
For he does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some
and eternal damnation for others’.
Calvin taught that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing).
The idea that God decides who receives salvation and who does not at creation
suggests that humans do not have free will with regards to their religious or
moral behaviour.
The omniscience of God can be seen here. We are not omniscient, as we are
finite beings; this means that we are ignorant beings. If God knows all then
there cannot be any future, free human actions as:
1. If God is omniscient he knows all that will be true in the future.
2. If God knows that some future event will come to pass, the event in
question will be such that it cannot but come to pass.
We are told in the Bible that God has numbered every hair on our heads and
knows every sparrow that falls.
The idea of predestination has significance in the debate about whether human
beings can save themselves or whether they are saved by God’s grace alone.
“For he does not create
everyone in the same
condition, but ordains
eternal life for some and
eternal damnation for
others”
(John Calvin)
9

HARD DETERMINISM

Hard Determinists maintain that everything in the universe, including all human
actions and choices, has a prior cause. Humans therefore are not free to act.
This argument, in philosophy, is also known as the theory/doctrine of
UNIVERSAL CAUSATION and brings with it the proposition that all events are
in principle predictable. The Hard Determinist would assert that if I am to be
responsible for my actions, surely I have to be free to choose those actions? If
I am to do something because it is pre-ordained for me to do, is it really my
decision? Many would say not. Hard determinists are not interested in so called
‘human desires’ as the motivation of our actions; rather, they look at the causal
factors BEHIND such desires.
The determinist case has gained strength with modern disciplines such as
sociology, psychology and anthropology. Charles Darwin (1809-82) in biology,
Karl Marx (1818-83) in sociology and Sigmund Freud (1865-1939) in psychology
all began advancing causal explanations of life, which led to many people
questioning traditional Christian ideas about the purpose and meaning of life.
With their increasing ability to account for human feelings and emotions, the
belief has grown that we, like everything else in the world, act in accordance with
causal laws. Human beings are seen as complicated bits of machinery, the
workings of which are governed by other factors such as genetics, the
environment around us, culture, society etc.
It follows that once a person appears to have a moral choice, this appearance is
an illusion. The philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) gave the following example
to explain this in his ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’: (Taken from
‘Moral Problems in Medicine’ by Michael Palmer)
Suppose that a sleeping man is placed in a locked room. On awakening he decides to stay
where he is, not knowing that the room is already locked. This is a real decision taken
by him, it is freely made and he might have decided to leave; but in reality he has no
choice and it is only his ignorance of his true condition, which made him think otherwise.
So it is with our moral choices. We think we are free when we decide to do X and not Y,
but in fact we are not. These decisions are causally determined; they are effects of
previous causes and these causes of still earlier causes, and so on.
10
Hard determinism has some ethical similarities to predestination. Ted Honderich
summarises it as the view that ‘…..all our choices, decisions, intentions, other
mental events, and our actions are no more than effects of other equally
necessitated events’.
The film ‘Swoon’ (1992) recounted the real-life notorious
murder committed by two boys and its aftermath.
Clarence Darrow (Famous male American Attorney, 18571938) defended the two boys (Nathan Leopold and Richard
Loeb) who murdered a 14-year-old called Bobby Franks.
The two murderers were rich and intelligent and had
planned the perfect crime to show their superiority over
society. The plan went wrong and they were quickly caught
and confessed to the murder. They were brought to trial
and faced the death penalty. Darrow argued
SUCCESSFULLY for their sentence to be reduced to life
imprisonment because the boys were products of their upbringing (nurture).
When Darrow defended person’s accused of murder, he used a standard
argument. He argued that his clients were not morally responsible for their
actions. Darrow thought that criminals should still be brought to justice to
protect society, but argued that it should not be assumed that they are
responsible for their actions. Darrow was one of the most skilful attorneys of all
time. Using arguments like these, he was able to convince every jury before
whom he argued that his clients were not deserving of the death penalty. The
following argument was used by Darrow:
‘Nature is strong as she is pitiless. She works in her own
mysterious way, and we are victims. We have not much to
do with ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we
play our parts……What had this boy to do with it? He was
not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not
his own grandparent. All this was handed to him. He did
not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he
is compelled to pay…To believe that any boy is responsible for himself or his early
training is an absurdity……. If his failing came from his heredity, I do not know where or
how. None of us are bred perfect and pure; and the colour of our hair, the colour of our
11
eyes, our stature, the weight and fineness of our brain, and everything about us could,
with full knowledge, be traced with absolute certainty to somewhere. …If there is a
responsibility anywhere, it is back of him; somewhere in the infinite number of
ancestors, or in his surroundings, or in both. And I submit, your Honor, that under
every principle of … and of law, he should not be made responsible for the acts.’ (Moral
Problems, M. Palmer).
If Leopold and Leob were not morally responsible for their behaviour, it was
because of what others had done to them. But these others, in turn, were not
morally responsible for what they had done, since they were products of what
had earlier been done to them. And so on.
The law considers people who have limited control over their actions because of
extreme psychological or emotional difficulties as having ‘diminished
responsibility’. The emotionally distraught woman who kills her husband is not
acting in total moral freedom. Her emotional state has distorted her judgement
and she is treated differently in court from the cold, calculated killer. But what
if we all suffer from diminished responsibility, because our actions are
determined by prior causes?
The contemporary determinist, John Hospers held this view:
Let us suppose it were established that a man commits murder only if, sometime during
the previous week, he has eaten a certain combination of foods – say tuna fish salad at a
meal also including peas, mushroom soup and blueberry pie. What if we were to track
down the factors common to all murders committed in this country during the last
twenty years and found this factor present in all of them, and only in them? The
example is, of course, absurd; but may it not be that there is some combination of
factors that regularly lead to homicide? … When such specific factors are discovered,
won’t they make it clear that it is foolish and pointless, as well as immoral, to hold human
beings responsible for crimes?
Genetics may have an influence over how we respond in a certain situation. Our
economic, religious, cultural backgrounds and experience of life may affect us in
such a way that our behaviour is determined rather than free. For example:
12
In 1968 Mary Bell (aged 11) was convicted of the murder
of two toddlers. She spent 12 years in secure units,
before being released as a 23-year-old. Her mother was
a prostitute who specialised in sado-masochism. Mary
would be forced to listen to her mother ‘entertain’
clients from behind a curtain.
Venables and Thompson who were convicted for the abduction, torture and
murder of Jamie Bulger also had a violent and unstable background/upbringing.
If a child is brought up knowing only violence, abuse and selfish adult
behaviour, can they be responsible for their own violent actions?
Bentham, and many other utilitarians have argued that the purpose of
punishment is deterrence, but it is only intentional actions that people can be
deterred from performing. Hard Determinists such as Darrow and Locke are not
saying that criminals should not be punished, since society must be protected
from them, however, they do question whether criminals (or anyone) are morally
responsible for their actions.
The Cosmological argument for the existence of God is
another example of how there are causes for things.
The term ‘cosmological’ derives from the word ‘cosmos’
meaning ‘the universe’. This argument states that there
must be a first cause for the universe to come into
existence, just as there is a cause for drinking a glass of
water. The argument infers the existence of God from
the existence of the cosmos, on the principle that nothing causes itself. Plato
and Aristotle had used this argument but the most famous Christian application
of the argument is found in Aquinas.
Lets just think about drinking a glass of water for a moment. What causes us to
drink a glass of water? Thirst? What caused us to be thirsty? Exercise? What
caused us to exercise? Lose weight? And so on…..
13
Morality is concerned with what people ought to do and what they ought not to
do. If however, they could not have done otherwise, or if they do not possess
the freedom to choose, then it does not really make sense to tell them that they
ought to have done differently or to punish them for what they did. The
challenge of determinism therefore, is that it speaks of the illusion of freedom
and therefore the absence of any moral blame.
Hard Determinism-A Brief Overview
This is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by
external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical
accountability. There are several supporting views for this belief which can be
summarised under the following ‘banners’:






Physical determinism: we’re made of matter which obeys the laws of
physics, such as gravity.
Biological determinism: our characters are determined by our genes.
Scientific determinism: Science tells us that for every physical event
there is a physical cause. If we consider the mind to be material activity
in the brain, chemical impulses, then our thoughts and desires are also
pre-determined.
Philosophical determinism: The theory of Universal Causation is the
belief that everything in the universe has a cause. The illusion of moral
choice is a result of our ignorance of what causes these choices, leading
us to believe they have no cause. John Locke’s sleeping man is an
example of this type of hard determinism.
Psychological determinism: Nature-Nurture. According to
psychological determinism our characters are determined by our
upbringing and experiences. There are many influencing factors on
human behaviour, such as: hereditary, society, culture and environment.
Theological (Divine) determinism: This is the belief that the causal
chain can be traced back to an uncaused causer (cosmological argumentAquinas), and this is God. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, as
suggested by Calvin, then we cannot have free-will and our actions must
be predetermined.
14
EVALUATING HARD DETERMINISM
 Negative aspects:
It has a number of consequences. It puts us in doubt of praise and blame. How
do we consider the morality of others if they are not morally responsible for
their actions?
We cannot be held morally responsible for our actions if
they are causally determined and not a result of our own
moral choice. The implication thus is that Adolf Hitler
is no more culpable for his actions than the good-doing
Christian church-goer.
Determinism means that we are mistaken to praise
someone for being good and blame those who are bad.
The whole notion of moral responsibility is called into
question. Murderers murder because they have the
wrong genes, poor upbringing, poor parents or even poor
teachers. This would have a huge impact on our notion of punishment, as it seems
wrong to punish others if they are not responsible for their actions.
Libertarians (looking at next) argue that determinists confuse things and that a
mechanical view of the world is incorrect.
 Positive aspects:
We are all a product of our genes,
upbringing and surroundings.
Determinists take this into account
and to some extent the justice system
does this also. It seems true that
there is a prior cause for everything,
including our actions and our choices,
since our character is a product of
other causes.
15
LIBERTARIANISM
When a person is confronted with the choice between right and wrong they are a
free agent and freely choose their actions. David Hume (1711-1776) described
liberty in his ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’ where he 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 choose
to move, we also may’.
Libertarianism believes that we are free to act and we are also morally
responsible for those actions. As Plato (428-347 BCE) said in ‘Republic’,
‘Your destiny shall not be allotted to you, but you shall choose it for yourselves’
In presenting their argument Libertarians often distinguish between a persons
formed character or personality and his or her moral self. Personality is
governed by causal laws, which are capable of scientific explanation and
prediction. The personality one has is formed by heredity and environment and
limits the choices one has, thus making us more likely to choose certain kinds of
actions and not others. A youth who is brought up surrounded by violence and
crime is more likely to decide on a career of violence and crime but this is not
inevitable. If the youth is aware of the significance of his/her actions it is
possible that their moral self will counteract the tendencies of his/her
personality and cause him/her to do something else, perhaps become a police
officer instead!
The moral self is an ethical concept, which comes into operation when we decide
what to do in situations of our moral choice. Most often this involves deciding
between self-interest and duty. This is what distinguishes humans from animals,
the former is capable of moral choice, and the latter are not. C A Campbell in
‘Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery’ writes,
‘In the act of deciding whether to put forth or withhold the moral effort required to
resist temptation and rise to duty, is to be found an act which is free in the sense
16
required of moral responsibility; an act which the self is sole author, and of which it is
true to say that ‘it could be’ (or, after the event, ‘could have been’)’.
The libertarian assumes that we have free will in situations of moral choice. (For
the determinist this is very unsatisfactory). The libertarian commonly uses
three additional arguments, these being:
1. Experience: we have the direct and certain experience of being selfdetermining. We may drink coffee, or tea, choose RE or Sociology, wear a
denim jacket or a leather one and so on. This experience is common to
everyone and even extends to those whose moral choices are sometimes
restricted. (E.g. drug addict). We all have the immediate experience of
decision, of making a choice, of deciding.
2. The Act of decision-making: all of us do this at one time or another and
this demonstrates that we possess free will. This is because we can only
make decisions about what to do if we do not already know what we are
going to do and if it is in our power to do what we are thinking of doing.
For example a university student may be considering whether to pay a
certain amount of money for a room. The student may take into
consideration the size of the room and so on. If the student has decided
to pay they have made that decision by weighing up the pros and cons.
They are capable of doing either A or B and if they cannot do either A or B
(I.e. got no money so couldn’t afford room anyway) then there is no choice.
The student could not make a choice if only one option was open to them.
The libertarian here is stating that since we all make decisions we must
believe that we can make choices, that we are free. We can only make a
decision however, if we have more than one option open to us.
3. The third argument is about what is necessarily true and what is
contingently true. Take the following statement ‘all bachelors are married’.
This is necessarily true because it could not possibly be false as an
‘unmarried’ man is precisely what is meant by the concept of ‘bachelor’.
This is true by definition. The statement ‘Miss Lugsden has hazel eyes’
however is said to be contingently true as it could be false as your eyesight
could be deceiving you, as the possibility of error always exists. This
17
argument was given by libertarians in response to the determinist’s view
that just because people believe they are free that is not to say they
actually are as many people can believe, on the evidence of certain
experiences that things are true, but they are not necessarily so. For
example one can say ‘my wife is faithful’ believing this to be true, but it
may not be so.
EVALUATING LIBERTARIANISM
 Negative:
Determinists maintain that decision-making is an illusion and surely to some
extent it is as our personality etc. is determined by other factors and so will our
decisions. Surely actions are caused by something? Just as it is difficult to say
that one thing causes another, it is just as difficult to say that there are no
causes beyond our control.
 Positive:
We do have choices in life and we can choose different things. Plenty of people
from violent backgrounds with ancestors who have been murderers have gone on
to be good people. We have choices in life, we have free will.
Do I have free will
or are the
determinists right?
18
SOFT DETERMINISM
This is the view that some aspects of human action are determined but at the
same time we are morally responsible for our actions.
Soft determinists reject the assumption that determinism is inconsistent with
free will. Soft determinists argue that determinism does not rule out free will.
They believe that determinism and free will are compatible.
This midway position suggests that some of our actions are conditioned, while
others have so complex a collection of causes that they may properly be
described as freely decided or willed.
Take the following statement: ‘Gandhi fasted because
he wanted to free India’. This would conform to what
the libertarian would call a free action however at the
same time is a cause not actually stated? Now look at
‘Gandhi’s desire to free India caused him to fast’.
Couldn’t we say that this desire was a result of other
causes such as his education, upbringing, the teaching of
the Hindu faith and so on?
The soft determinists say that a precise causal explanation may be possible and
that if known we would find out why Gandhi did what he did.
According to soft determinists the distinction between internal and external
causes explains why freedom and moral responsibility are not only compatible
with determinism but actually require it. If you leave the county because you
want a holiday, you leave of your own free will but if you leave because the
authorities expel you, then you are obviously forced to leave. In each case your
action is caused. In the first you desire a holiday, in the latter you are forced to
go. When the cause is internal (i.e. result of your own wishes or desires) you
acted of your own free will but when the cause is external (i.e. not your wishes or
desires) you did not act voluntarily. (Remember what Aristotle said about praise
and blame? – see page 3).
19
Soft determinists believe that all human actions are caused and when we say that
a person acted freely we are not saying that there was no cause but rather they
were not forced to do it. Here they act as free agents even though their actions
are still caused.
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
recognise the true extent of freedom. Whilst soft determinism offers an
agreeable account of moral freedom a line still has to be drawn between that
which is determined and that which is open to choice. Soft determinists have to
try to agree on what is and what is not a determining factor and the complexities
of genetics, psychology and physics makes such a line difficult for them to draw.
20
PAST/POSSIBLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
1. Examine critically the claim that free will and determinism are
incompatible.
2. ‘It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of
free will.’ Discuss.
3. Explain determinist understandings of human freedom.
4. ‘People who have been brought up badly should be given lenient punishments
for offences.’ Discuss
5. ‘People are not free to make moral decisions.’ Discuss.
‘PeoPle are not free to make moral decisions.’ discuss.
AO1:
Candidates could discuss what is meant by hard determinism, moral freedom
and libertarianism and whether humans are ever free to make moral decisions.
They could compare these with compatibilism (soft determinism).
Some candidates might consider theological determinism, Calvin and
predestination and religious teachings on free will.
AO2:
Candidates should consider the implications for ethics if we are not free. They
should consider the implications of the above statement in terms of human
accountability and responsibility. If we are not free then how does this impact
on our system of reward and punishment?
They might consider whether we are free or just feel free and the idea that
freedom is just apparent – we may feel free but we are not (Locke). In
addition, they may introduce the teaching of Kant when he said that to be
moral we must be free.