Free Will: The Choice is Yours

Free will is a much more complicated idea than it initially seems. Though many philosophers have tried to pin down its extensive definition into one meaning, the main notion is much more intricate and involves the concept of moral responsibility. Philosophy is such a broad field and is based on questioning rather defining anything, thus free will remains a topic that is exclusively questioned. It can be examined through determinism, fatalism, and divine intervention while tying moral responsibility into each one.

Free will, when looked at from a distance can make the obvious distinction that as human beings, the right to do whatever one chooses is in their hands; and because they are choosing to partake in whatever actions they are involved in, they are certainly responsible for them as well. When free will and moral responsibility are placed together, there are many ideas that branch off the two of them. One of these ideas is that to be morally responsible, one must always try and do what they think is right. If someone is going into a situation and they must have a reaction to it, they must think about what their actions are going to be and if they are morally correct, they must consider whether the decision they are about to make and the consequences of that decision will leave them feeling guilty or as if they’ve made the correct decision. This leads to the question of whether or not free will actually exist or if actions are predetermined.

Fatalism plays a large part in questioning free will. It holds the belief that no person is in charge of their own actions and that their destiny is already laid out for them. Fatalism looks to define that every person's path in life is already predetermined, leaving no room for interpretation of free will. This also puts moral responsibility into play, because if a person has no control over their actions then they must not be able to determine what moral responsibility is either. Either that or they have no control over their moral responsibility. The problem with fatalism is that if life is already predetermined, then everyone would be able to see their own fate and their own future. This makes the idea of fatalism a bit impossible and yet still attainable.

The possibility of fate seems real when looked at from a different point of view than predetermined actions. The idea is that a person’s actions are predetermined, and so when they are actually involved in the act, it is subconsciously bringing them to their scheduled date. The unfortunate part is that there is no way of knowing whether that is actually possible or not, there is no definitive answer when it involves fate. However this must mean that there is no moral responsibility when it comes to fatalism because one cannot be held accountable for their actions when they have no control over them. Fatalism, no doubt involves some type of religious belief. The idea that all beings have a predetermined fate comes up in many religions across the world. As Carmody (2002) explains about omniscience fatalism, “if there is an omniscient being, he knows everything and so knows the entire future state of the universe. There is, therefore, no way the future can be other than it is.” This raises an entirely different perspective on fate altogether, the outcomes are endless. However based on the ideas that swarm around fatalism, determinism branches off and looks at free will in an almost entirely different light.

When discussing determinism, John Stuart Mill stands out as the most prominent figure in favor of it. Determinism looks to identify with the fact that a person does, in fact, control his own destiny by using the power of free will. Determinism would be one of the areas that are most closely related to moral responsibility and free will because this is where a person would be able to think about their actions before they are produced and the result would be of their own doing. The idea that Mill is trying to explain can be better represented through Capaldi’s (2004) explanation of his thought process, stating “Mill established to his satisfaction that all thinking begins with experience and proceeds by means of the association of ideas based upon those experiences.” This is an excellent example of Mill’s view of determinism that explains in better detail what it actually represents.

Mill is trying to convey that an action must be thought out before it is determined. People base their actions off of past experiences that better help them to make a judgment for their actions in the future. This intertwines deeply with moral responsibility. The reason is that if a person can base actions off of past experience, then they know that what they are doing will have either a negative effect or a positive effect. To be able to determine whether something is good or bad absolutely involves a person’s moral code, and thus determinism and moral responsibility go hand in hand. This means that a person is in charge of their own fate by the decisions that they make, rather than the actions of the person predetermining their future.

When investigating the idea of divine intervention, one is forced to look back at fatalism. These two concepts seem to be tightly wound together, as one indicates that free will does not exist and fate is predetermined, while divine intervention exposes that God has the ability to intervene in a person's life and change the outcome of a circumstance completely. Scheiman (et al, 2006) further explains that “God exerts a commanding authority over the course and direction of his or her life.” This concept is linked to religion just as fatalism has the ability to be linked to it. However, when determining whether divine intervention has to do with free will or not, it can be better understood because there is more of a definitive answer.

Divine intervention when discussing free will and moral responsibility seems to be a very concise and brief investigation. This is because divine intervention calls upon God to interfere with whatever the outcome is, and if he does change the course of someone’s life it is still predetermined because God was the one who made the plan in the first place. Therefore it seems that free will and moral responsibility have the same hold as they did when discussing fatalism. If a future is predetermined by a god or higher power, then if the higher power that was responsible for that predetermination decides to change fate, it is their right. This means that the person whose actions are changed cannot be held responsible for their actions whether they were moral or immoral because they had no control over them. Divine intervention seems as if it is almost a magic trick, one can ask for help in determining their future and whether or not God or the higher power being asked decides to respond is their fate. Although it is one of the easier philosophies to explain, it is one of the most difficult ones to understand.

Ultimately the question of whether or not free will and moral responsibility are linked will remain undefinable. There is no scientific proof that can account for any of the allegations made by philosophers everywhere. It is a theory that is based on human nature and the belief system that determines whether it is true or not would be an impossibility. Each person must determine their own actions based on what their belief system tells them. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to a belief system, however being in the 21st century does provide a moral guideline for people to follow due to the judicial system. This certainly does not determine someone’s fate, but it involves the entire world to adhere to a strict code of morals that could easily influence a person’s beliefs about the anthropologies of free will and moral responsibility. Though that is another branch of the tree that can be explored, just as there are hundreds of others.

What is known is that moral responsibility is a necessity to live a healthy and fulfilling life as a human being. The only thing that is defining what is right or wrong is the world’s moral code and this encompasses all moral responsibility. The way someone chooses to live and whether or not to incorporate fatalism, determinism, or divine intervention into their lives is a matter of personal opinion and that is something that can never be contained or defined.

References

Carmody, M. (2002). Fate and Fatalism. The Richmond Journal of Philosophy, n/a, 1.

Nicholas, Capaldi. (2004) John Stuart Mill: A biography. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.

Schieman, S., Pudrovski, T., Pearlin, L., & Ellison, C. (2006). The Sense of Divine Control and Psychological Distress: Variations Across Race and Socioeconomic Status. Journal for the scientific Study of Religion, 45(4), 529-549.