Philosophy of Humanity

Ethics (Moral Philosophy)

Free Will

The subject of ethical analysis and moral evaluation is solely the actus humanus, that is, an action for which a person makes a deliberate decision. Hence, ethics is only possible when a person can make decisions independently. The precondition for independent decision-making is the freedom of will. Thus, freedom of will is one of the central themes in moral philosophy. Participants in the debate about free will strive to answer whether a person is capable of making decisions autonomously, that is, whether a person is truly free. The prevailing response to this question is the acknowledgment of free will. Such acknowledgment is a necessary precondition for any evaluation of actions. If humans were not free, then their actions could not be assessed either morally or legally. For example, a tree does not have free will; thus, if it falls on a car or a person, no one would claim that the tree has violated the law or acted immorally. However, if a person harms property or another person's health, their actions are evaluated from both legal and moral perspectives. If a person lacked free will, their actions would, like those of a tree, be beyond moral or legal evaluation.

Therefore, the very nature of morality requires that a person possesses free will. However, explaining what it means to be free is quite challenging. Throughout the history of moral philosophy, some thinkers have argued that, since free will is a mysterious concept, it should be abandoned altogether. The ethical direction that denies free will is called determinism. This term derives from the Latin verb "determinare" (to determine). Most determinists base their beliefs on the conviction that a person is merely a material being. If a person has no spirit, then they are entirely immersed in natural processes. Everything in nature is governed by strict laws. If a person is purely material, then, like all other material things, they are entirely subject to the laws of nature. Determinists assert that free will is merely an illusion created by ignorance. People believe they are free simply because they have a poor understanding of natural laws and cannot predict all future events. An illustration of this problem is Laplace's Demon, a thought experiment proposed by French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814: imagine an entity that knows everything about the natural world, the movement of every atom, all data describing nature. Such an entity would know the entire past of the world and could accurately predict the future. Laplace's Demon would be completely unfree, as its knowledge would make it fully aware of its own determinism. Determinism is represented by a broad spectrum of views. Each adherent of this concept defines differently how and to what extent a person is determined. Thus, one can distinguish between strict and moderate determinism, as well as biological, physical, logical, historical, social, and other forms of determinism.

Determinism is not necessarily tied to science, and there is no basis to equate it with science. Any precise predictions about the future are based on determinism. Ancient Greeks believed that their entire lives were entirely determined by fate, and all their actions were strictly determined. Despite the high level of contemporary science, the modern world is rife with primitive forms of determinism, such as horoscopes, divination, palm reading, and so forth. If someone believes that the future is inevitable and can be precisely described, it implies that personal decisions have no bearing, and that the person is entirely determined by nature, fate, or spiritual forces.

In addition to philosophers who affirm free will and determinists, there are also intermediate positions. One such position is compatibilism, advocated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), David Hume (1710-1776), Daniel Clement Dennett (born 1942), and others. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. According to them, a person is constrained by nature, psychology, history, society, and so forth. All these factors determine their behavior. However, no matter how stringent these factors may be, a person is free to form their own attitude toward what happens to them. By understanding the laws of nature, psychology, history, and society, a person can adjust their behavior. For example, the law of universal gravitation affects all material objects, so if a person jumps from a height, they will fall and be injured. This is beyond their control, and this natural law determines them. However, knowing about it, they can avoid situations that would allow gravity to act harmfully. An alcoholic may not be able to resist alcohol when offered, but knowing this tendency, they can avoid situations where they might be tempted and thus protect themselves from this vice.

Apart from these positions, some thinkers have expressed views that do not fit neatly into any of these concepts but are important for ethics:

• Benedict Spinoza asserted that freedom is the conscious awareness of necessity. Events occur as they do. All a person can do is shape their attitude towards them: either recognize their inevitability and accept them as their choice or protest without the possibility of changing them.
• John Locke claimed that a person is free only to choose among given possibilities, not to choose the possibilities themselves.
• Arthur Schopenhauer argued that people are free to do what they wish but not free to wish what they want.

As long as debates on free will continue in moral philosophy, civilization is in no rush to abandon the concept of free will. Such an abandonment would deprive people of the ability to appeal to moral and legal responsibility, and the world would devolve into chaos, filled with crime and evil. The legal system and ethics are founded on the axiom that individuals are responsible for their actions.