Notes on Free Will and Determinism

Free will: definition, intuition, and consequences for ethics

• Definition: free will means the ability to make free choices about decisions, with no external entity singularly determining those decisions

• Everyday intuition: examples like choosing to take the elevator or the stairs illustrate a sense of freedom in at least some moments

• Counterposition: determinism argues that external factors largely determine actions, narrowing or eliminating genuine choice

• Intuitive evidences people often point to as support for free will

  • At every life moment, one could have done something else (the sense of alternative possibilities)

  • Regret as experiential evidence: feeling that an action could have been different implies a sense of choice

  • Regret supports a sense that some actions could have been otherwise

• Why this matters for ethics: free will is essential for moral responsibility; without genuine choice, moral praise/blame becomes problematic

The central argumentative premise set (moral evaluation and free will)

• Core claim: Moral evaluation requires holding people responsible for their actions

• What “responsibility” entails in practice

  • When someone does something right, they deserve praise (and possibly rewards)

  • When someone does something wrong, they deserve blame

• The key premise structure in today’s lecture (the crux of the issue)

  • Premise 1: Moral evaluation requires us to hold people responsible for their actions

  • Premise 2: If we hold people responsible, then free will must exist for that responsibility to be meaningful

  • Premise 3: There are forces outside of individuals that can determine actions (determinism)

  • Premise 4: If premise 3 is true, then there is no free will, undermining moral evaluation

• Friday’s plan: revisit the same argument but with a different premise to explore the issue from another angle

• Logical representation (informal):

  • Let F = “Free will exists”; let M = “Moral evaluation is meaningful/possible”; let D = “Determinism holds”

  • If D, then ¬F: $D <br>ightarrow <br>eg F$

  • If F, then M: $F <br>ightarrow M$ (free will enables meaningful moral evaluation)

  • Therefore, if D, then ¬M: $D <br>ightarrow <br>eg M$

• Implication for society: if determinism is true, the justice system and moral accountability would be radically transformed

Determinism and its four structural sources

• Distinct from fatalism/destiny: determinism involves causal inevitability within the fabric of reality, whereas fatalism emphasizes predetermined outcomes regardless of causes

• Deterministic perspectives (four sources):
  1) Psychological causation (psychological egoism): human actions are motivated by self-interest as the primary driving force
  2) Genetic determinants: genetic makeup predisposes tendencies, inclinations, or propensities toward certain actions
  3) Sociological determinism (nurture): upbringing, family, community shape behavior and choices
  4) Physical determinism: laws of physics (including biological laws) govern behavior; at macro level these laws are obeyed and are deterministic

• Extreme form: fatalism vs destiny

  • Fatalism: events are predetermined from the outset of the universe

  • Destiny: outcomes could be predetermined but might admit alternative pathways depending on choices

• Agent-causation vs external causation

  • If determinism is true to a strong degree, agents are not the primary causes of their actions

  • The phrase: “lacks agent causation” highlights the view that the individual is not the ultimate source of actions

• Two epistemic stances on free will within determinism

  • Schopenhauer: deterministic universe; pessimistic view; existence has little intrinsic meaning if all is predetermined

  • William James: even if determinism is strong, live as if you have free will for practical and moral reasons; acting as if free will has pragmatic and emotional benefits

• Why these two figures matter: they frame why people either embrace a strong determinism or adopt a pragmatic stance that preserves agency in day-to-day life

Sociological determinism (nurture-focused)

• Core idea: upbringing and environment largely determine who we become

• Key questions: how much do family background, community norms, schooling, and culture limit or shape our choices?

• Example: athletes overcoming harsh backgrounds

  • A player from a poor, challenging upbringing rises to the NBA/league level; the example illustrates how nurture influences outcomes but can still result in personal achievement

• Example: individuals who fall into crime due to environmental factors

• Takeaway: sociological determinism emphasizes the external factors that limit or guide choices; even success stories imply a strong influence of environment

• Resulting stance: free will is not entirely absent but is significantly constrained by social factors

Genetic determinants

• Core idea: genetic makeup predisposes certain traits or propensities

• Common misuse: the notion of an single “alcoholic gene” is inaccurate; rather, there are markers that indicate higher or lower likelihoods of certain behaviors when combined with environmental factors

• Practical implication: genetic predispositions limit free will to a degree; personal choices can still occur, but the baseline likelihood of certain actions is shaped by genetics

• Interaction with sociological determinism: combined effects can further restrict or channel choices (e.g., a person with genetic predispositions living in an environment that fosters a certain behavior may have a higher probability of that outcome)

• Overall stance: free will exists but is bounded by genetic structure; the argument emphasizes probabilistic rather than absolute constraints

Psychological determinism (psychological egoism) and the Ring of Gyges

• Core claim: humans share a common human nature driven by self-interest; every action is ultimately motivated by self-benefit

• Extreme version: altruism is never purely selfless; even acts that seem benevolent serve the actor’s own interests in some way

• Plato’s Ring of Gyges as an illustration

  • Shepherd finds a ring that makes him invisible; his actions reveal underlying selfish motives when there are no consequences

  • If consequences are removed, the shepherd proves to be guided by self-interest rather than virtue

• Consequences of psychological egoism for morality: if true, moral actions may not be genuinely altruistic; moral praise/blame would reflect self-serving reasons

• An illustrative personal example (the speaker’s cross-country meet): showing up may be motivated by the desire to be seen as a good father and to shape outcomes for personal benefit

• Summary: human behavior is explained as self-interested activity; altruism is reinterpreted as instrumentally serving self-interest

Physical determinism: macro view, micro challenges, and the role of emotion

• The macro-physical view (hard determinism)

  • Premise 1: humans are complex physical systems

  • Premise 2: all complex physical systems follow the laws of physics

  • Premise 3: these laws are fully deterministic

  • Premise 4: therefore, human behavior is fully determined

  • Premise 5: if behavior is fully determined, free will is illusory

  • Result: moral responsibility is undermined under strict physical determinism

• Expected objections: emotions and mental states are real and influence decisions; physicalism should account for emotions via brain states

  • The brain is physical; hormones and neural states influence decisions; thus determinism could still be compatible with some sense of choice under a physicalist account

• Dualism critique: if mind (non-physical) exists as something separate from the body, then physical determinism cannot fully explain human behavior

• The micro level: quantum indeterminacy and indeterminacy at subatomic scales

  • Quantum scale shows indeterminacy; not all events are strictly governed by deterministic laws with current understanding

  • The “corpuscles” (subatomic particles) exhibit indeterminate behavior, suggesting possible room for chance at the smallest scales

  • Implication: macro-level determinism may not fully capture the randomness or freedom at the micro level

• The macro/micro distinction and its implications for free will

  • Macro-level determinism posits a largely predictable world governed by classical physics/biology

  • Micro-level indeterminacy introduces potential for chance events that could influence decisions

• The practical effect: while macro determinism presents a strong challenge to free will, micro-level indeterminacy is often invoked to preserve some space for agency

• Peter van Inwagen and the “mystery” position

  • Some philosophers argue that the true status of free will in light of both macro determinism and micro indeterminacy may remain unresolved

  • The takeaway: many scholars conclude that a definitive, universal verdict may be beyond reach, with reasonable cases for both sides

Philosophical positions and the practical takeaways

• Schopenhauer: a vigorously deterministic view; life appears to be governed by forces beyond individual control; existence may seem meaningless under strict determinism

• William James: even if determinism is strong, it remains pragmatic to act as if we have free will; this behaviour supports personal happiness, responsibility, and social trust

• The pragmatic incentive to act as if free will exists

  • Acting as if we are responsible reinforces social trust, moral development, and accountability

  • Even if free will is illusory, living as if we are responsible benefits individuals and communities

• The ongoing tension: science (deterministic physics/biology) vs lived experience (emotions, sense of agency, moral responsibility)

Implications for morality, law, and everyday life

• If determinism were proven to be true in a strong sense, major revisions to moral and legal practices might follow

  • The basis for punishment, praise, and moral blame would be called into question

  • Some propose shifting to systems focusing on rehabilitation and deterrence without assuming retributive moral blame

• If free will is only partially constrained by external factors, a nuanced approach to responsibility may emerge

  • Individuals may still be responsible to a meaningful degree, though their choices are shaped by genetic, social, and environmental factors

• The middle-ground view (compatibilism): a position often entertained in philosophy that free will can coexist with determinism under certain definitions; actions can be free if not coerced and aligned with one’s internal motivations, even if those motivations arise from deterministic processes

Quick study prompts and end-of-lecture reflection

• How does moral evaluation rely on some form of freedom to blame or praise?

• What are the main differences between sociological, genetic, psychological, and physical determinism?

• How do the Ring of Gyges and the example of the cross-country meet illustrate psychological egoism in practice?

• In what ways could quantum indeterminacy at the micro level provide space for free will within a physically deterministic universe?

• Which view aligns best with everyday experience: a strict determinist, a libertarian free-will advocate, or a compatibilist? Why?

• How would you explain the ethical implications of determinism to someone in the criminal justice system?

Key takeaways (summary in brief)

• Ethics involves questions about obligation, consequences, and character; free will is a central concern for creating meaningful moral evaluations

• Determinism comes from multiple sources: sociological, genetic, psychological, and physical; each proposes different degrees to which our choices are constrained

• Philosophers differ on whether free will exists, is an illusion, or can be preserved through practical everyday living; James and Schopenhauer provide contrasting viewpoints on this

• The macro view of physical determinism challenges free will, while the micro view of quantum indeterminacy suggests possible space for chance and agency

• The moral significance of determinism hinges on whether free will is necessary for holding people morally responsible; the dominant practical stance in many contexts is to act as if we have free will, regardless of ultimate metaphysical truth

Quick reference: numbered premises and equations

• Premise-based outline (as discussed):

  • Premise 1: Moral evaluation requires holding people responsible for their actions

  • Premise 2: If we hold people morally responsible, then free will is required for that responsibility

  • Premise 3: There exist external forces that determine actions

  • Premise 4: If Premise 3 is true, then free will does not exist (undermining moral evaluation)

• Compact logical form (informal):

  • Let F = Free will exists; D = Determinism holds; M = Moral evaluation is meaningful

  • Determinism implies not F: $D <br>ightarrow <br>eg F$

  • If free will exists, then moral evaluation is meaningful: $F <br>ightarrow M$

  • Therefore, if D holds, then M is undermined: $D <br>ightarrow <br>eg M$

• Practical takeaway: if determinism is true, the typical basis for moral responsibility is challenged, with major implications for justice systems and social norms