Introduction
Having the ability to act and think as we like is regarded as free will. There should be a possibility of avoiding the action to be justified as an act of free will. Generally, human beings can act on their own accord as moral agents, having the ability to choose between options without any persuasion. Free will is closely linked to praise, sin, blame, and moral responsibility regarding freely chosen actions. Additionally, it gets connected with deliberation, advice, prohibition, and persuasion. One of the longest-running debates of both religion and philosophy has been whether free will exists or not. Freedom has gets mistaken to be related to free will, but there is a significant difference. With independence, there is the prevention of willed actions from being realized instead of free will, where one is free to try. Free will enables us to act and think as we like but has limitations that deter us from performing specific actions, making us question the extent to which we are free.
Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Freedom of will usually goes hand in hand with moral responsibility. It describes our capacity to make our own choices, whether good or bad genuinely. Having that choice requires a self-resilient approach to avoid misusing freedom. However, despite having the freedom to do what we want, some limitations prevent certain deeds (Alaoui, 2019). One cannot murder as an act of free will and expect to be free; they must get punished for their wrongdoing. Moral responsibility acts as a guide to prevent us from making wrong decisions and weigh the consequences before making certain judgments (Alaoui, 2019). Having the ownership to make choices has its effects. When the right decisions get made, we deserve the resulting rewards. However, if wrong decisions get made, we deserve the consequences.
Free will has both philosophical and theological roots. In theology, there is a claim that we got created in God’s image and likeness, then we have the physical manifestation of Him. However, the claim is made regarding the moral vision of the creator, meaning we have the divine capacity to examine free will. In his book, Free Will, Sam Harris argues that free will is an illusion (Bonotti & Seglow, 2021). Despite our ability to act and think as we like, our wills are not of our own making. The freedom we believe we have is not there since the thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes over which we lack conscious control and are aware (Bonotti & Seglow, 2021). Does this raise many questions like: are we free? Are we free to act and think as we like? The brain determines what we will do before doing the action. We are mere conscious witnesses to decisions that have already been made, deep in our brains.
Theories of Free Will
Theorists have formulated several theories to explain how we can honestly act and think as we like. The views of free will focus majorly on two fundamental questions: its nature and its possibility. There are three categories of contemporary theories related to free will: Incompatibilism, impossibilism, and compatibilism (Perina, 2022). Incompatibilists believe that we act freely since free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Three theories, non-causal, event-causal, and agent-causal, show the relevance of the nondeterministic approach exclusively (Nodelman & Zalta, 2022). Free actions under the non-causal theories need to be caused by something. Two main objections faced by the idea are control and reason explanation. For any act of free will to be possible, action needs to be involved, and for it to be justified, there must be an explanation. Non-causal theories fail to provide adequate evidence of these two significant claims to explain them.
Compatibilist Theory
Compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with determinism since it is typically a necessary condition of moral responsibility. It is a response to a problem caused by causal determinism. In contemporary philosophy, compatibilism has developed classical, compatibilism in transition, and contemporary compatibilism. Classical compatibilism portrays freedom as the ability to do something based on desires with no limits to stop the act (Nodelman & Zalta, 2022). Free will is regarded here as the ability to do what the heart desires. The theorist supporting this argument claimed that determinism is compatible with the ability to do something contrary to the expected. In the modern view of contemporary compatibilism, theorists emphasize the incompatibility of free will and determinism (Nodelman & Zalta, 2022). Free will gets disregarded because we have no control over the consequences of the past and the law of nature. Under determinism, all the present choices affect the achievement of free will.
Determinist Theory
The debate of determinism and free will revolves around the possibility of our behaviors impeding our ability to behave and act in specific ways. External and internal forces govern our behavior, and we have no control over them. The determinist approach recommends that all behaviors are predictable since they have a cause (Mele, 2018). Determinism has two levels that impede our judgment: hard and soft determinism. Under hard determinism, theorists depict free will as an illusion, believing that every action and event has a root cause. A middle ground in which people have a choice gets represented under soft determinism. However, internal and external factors constrain these choices. It determines that there is an element of free will in all behavior despite some being more constrained than others. An example related to it includes a person stealing out of desperation because they are poor. Being poor makes them more likely to commit the act because of a lack of options.
Nondeterministic Theory
Indeterminism, which relates to chance, portrays opposite characteristics to the determinism theories and states that past experiences do not occasionally determine human actions or other events. Some ideas under this level support the possibility of free will. Libertarianism theory asserts that human beings make genuine choices since they have free will (Mele, 2018). Freedom has three main principles: the absence of human restraint, which limits one’s ability to choose alternatives as one wishes. Two is an absence of physical constraints that limit the chances of achieving the objectives set. Lastly, the power one has to enable one to achieve the goal set. The limitations here indicate that even though there is the desire to do what one wants, it is not possible. Our free will needs to be limited, especially if they hurt others. It is impossible for us to always freely act the way we like.
Origin of Free Will
Man is believed to be free despite limitations preventing ultimate freedom. The freedom of action gets practiced as man follows his inclinations and desires while also implementing personal decisions. An effort is only considered free if there are no external factors, and there is free will. Theorists such as Thomas Hobbes have claimed that man cannot be the source of the actions he performs (Perina, 2022). There is an unknown cause from which all inclinations and desires proceed. He argues that humans have no freedom of will since it is beyond them, and they also lack the power of origination.
On the other hand, Belfast concludes that free will originates from the mind, allowing an individual to agree or disagree. Sebastian Fisher believes that self-constraint increases free will rather than diminishing it. He also sees freedom as a path and not a destination, and to choose the best, one must fight against personal cultural influence, society, and conventional wisdom (Perina, 2022). If one desires to be free, one needs to be constantly alert against individual incentives since reason is the tool for freedom of will.
Limitations to Free Will
Free will to act and do anything we like is limited in some respects. Moral responsibility enhances the achievement of desirable deeds concerning working freely. In society, we live together in harmony and love; hence the notion of free will needs to be considered (O’Connor, 2019). Despite having the right to do what we like and express our freedom, our actions should not harm others. In cases where there is harm, punishment becomes an option, disregarding any freedom rights.
Rules and Regulations Limiting Free Will
In many cases, free will gets constrained by rules and regulations. At workplaces, employees can not just choose to do what they feel because of free will; they tend to follow the rules set or risk being fired (O’Connor, 2019). Many situations make us doubt if we are truly free or under arrest in our cell. It is pretty easy to say we are not free to do and act as we like. Everything has its restrictions that have inevitable consequences if not met.
The extent to which we are free is quite limited, making philosophers question whether freedom is possible. If we had freedom, why can one not travel to the desired country without specific documents even if they have the will? Without integrating moral responsibility, we risk getting severe or mild punishments if we follow our intentions (Mele, 2018). Freedom is an illusion, and there is no absolute freedom that we can experience as our actions are restricted. Harris indicates that our choices are not free, but they still matter (Nodelman & Zalta, 2022). The options made shape the paths taken in life. Factors that might influence our behavior include our preferences, intentions, reasoning, and efforts made due to free will. The author concludes that choices matter, but they can not be chosen. Another question that may be raised is, are we morally responsible for our actions? With the claim that we do not have free will, the idea of being morally upright becomes hard to verify since all our choices are pre-determined.
Being self-determined is faced with some challenges categorized into spiritual, governmental, and physical limitations. Choices come from already-determined options that occur naturally without our knowledge and free will. We desire what we choose, and God already knows of it. Under spiritual limitations, two categories are formed: God’s will and man’s will (Perina, 2022). In religious terms, especially in Christianity, God gave man the ability to make choices and placed them higher than the rest of the animals. Man is regarded here as an intellectual who can distinguish right from wrong (Perina, 2022). Despite God being omniscient, He does not limit the choices we make. He gave man the power to carry his work on earth by free will.
Physical Limitations
Physical limitations portray the observable accounts as a result of exercising free will. Although we can act and think as we like, it does not necessarily give people the power to work outside their nature. People can not go live underwater just because they can act and think as they like (Bonotti & Seglow, 2021). Man cannot survive underwater for long; he will die hence the need for some limitation against this will. One of the most obvious limitations to a human’s free will is the government in each setting; whether local or international, laws are put in place to govern people (Bonotti & Seglow, 2021). The rules prevent physical and verbal assault against others; it also limits people from doing anything that may be harmful to others. Laws stated by the government are there to help people choose good and not evil since there are consequences for doing wrong (Perina, 2022). One can not commit murder and claim they have the right to act and think the way they like. If one commits this, they are sentenced and punished accordingly.
Each day, we repeatedly exercise free will through our choices, whether right or wrong. However, neurologists argue that whether to do something or not is determined in the brain ten seconds before the participant even becomes aware. In this argument, brain activity determines the experiences of free will. Having that belief of having free will impacts our mental health positively, even if free will is lacking. Several theorists argue that uncontrollable metaphysical and internal processes determine the actions portrayed by humans (Alaoui, 2019). The choices made can be traced back to external deterministic causes, disregarding the concept of free will. Each day, questions are raised, and studies are conducted to verify whether free will is or is not present.
Conclusion
In conclusion, with free will, one can act and think as one like. However, this is impossible in all circumstances, especially those affecting others. Free will has theological and philosophical roots in our freedom over our deeds. Several theories have been formed to explain the origin of our behavior and actions, including compatibilism and indeterminism theories. The choices have consequences, whether positive or negative. For the right decisions, the rewards are positive, but the result is always negative, like getting imprisoned for wrong choices. In contemporary philosophy, philosophers believe that the decisions made are not a result of free will but because of brain capacity and thinking. They agree with neurologists who claim that thought is made by the brain ten seconds before we even think of it. Three categories of limitations impede the exercising of free will: physical limitations that affect us, government limitations that are stated as laws, and religious restrictions. Free will is believed to be exercised each day as choices are made. It is proper to note that limitations make it evident that we do not act and think as we like. Considerations need to be made, ensuring the actions done do not affect others.
References
Alaoui, A. (2019). The problem of free will and moral responsibility. Questions: Philosophy for Young People, 19, 21-22.
Bonotti, M., & Seglow, J. (2021). Freedom of expression. Philosophy Compass, 16(7).
Mele, A. (2018). Free will, moral responsibility, and scientific Epiphenomenalism.Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
Nodelman, U., & Zalta, E. (2022). Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato.stanford.edu.
O’Connor, T. (2019). How do we know that we are free?European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 15(2), 79-98.
Perina, K. (2022). Free Will. Psychology Today. Web.