Will (philosophy) – Summary

For the full text of this summary, see: Will (Philosophy).

A summary of Will (Philosophy) from the Encyclopædia Britannica 1911, generated by ChatGPT.

WILL, in philosophy. 

• The “Problem of Freedom” refers to the difficulties and questions surrounding the relationship between human deliberate and purposive action and the rest of the universe.
• The problem has both metaphysical and theological origins, and has been further complicated by discoveries in science and psychological analysis of consciousness.
• The problem of freedom is fundamentally a moral controversy, arising from the need to reconcile the omniscience and omnipotence of God with the requirements of a moral universe.
• The arguments used in the debate over the problem of freedom may be largely philosophical, but the underlying issue is primarily moral.
• There has been a recent trend in philosophical speculation to prioritize the demands of the moral consciousness over those of metaphysics, science, and psychology.

Greek philosophers

• Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, did not engage in debate over the problem of freedom in the form it is presented to modern minds.
• Socrates and Plato believed that moral conduct was the result of knowledge, and that ignorance was the cause of vice. Aristotle discussed the conditions that constituted voluntary or involuntary action, but did not address the question of whether voluntary acts were the result of freedom of choice.
• The Stoic and Epicurean philosophies marked a shift in the discussion of the problem of freedom, with the Stoics attempting to reconcile belief in responsibility based on freedom of choice with belief in an all-pervading Anima Mundi, and the Epicureans asserting the existence of freedom while also positing chance as a real cause and universal contingency as an explanation of the universe.
• The Stoic Chrysippus distinguished between main and contributory causes of conduct and argued that character, as the main cause, was the responsible and accountable element in morality.
• The Epicureans argued that the mind was not subject to the determinism of the body, and that the choice to act virtuously was based on an understanding of what was in one’s own best interest.
• The Roman philosopher Cicero argued that responsibility for moral action rested on the ability to choose between right and wrong.
• The Christian philosophers Augustine and Pelagius engaged in a debate over the role of free will in moral action, with Augustine arguing that humanity was unable to act morally without the help of divine grace, and Pelagius asserting that individuals had the ability to choose to do good or evil.
• The philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus introduced the concept of “liberty of indifference,” which posited that individuals had the ability to choose between multiple options without being predetermined to choose any particular one.
• The Renaissance philosopher Descartes argued that the mind was separate from the body and capable of making free choices, but also believed that the will was subject to the influence of the passions.

Christianity

• The rise of Christianity and its doctrine of creation posed challenges for reconciling belief in human freedom with belief in divine government of the world.
• The Christian doctrine of redemption and the dualism of belief in an optimistic view of the universe and the reality of moral evil intensified the difficulties around the concept of human responsibility and divine omnipotence.
• St. Augustine was the first Christian philosopher to fully confront the problem of freedom, but ultimately limited the possession of freedom to Adam and argued that the rest of humanity was incapable of choosing good and in need of divine grace for redemption.
• This led Augustine to develop the doctrine of predestination, according to which every individual is predestined either to evil or to good by their natural birthright or by divine grace, and the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God exclude any possibility of individual initiative influencing divine choice.

Scholasticism

• In medieval philosophy, the problem of freedom was approached from traditional Aristotelian and Augustinian lines of thought, with different philosophers arriving at different conclusions.
• Thomas Aquinas argued that freedom was the power to choose what was determined by the intellect to be worthy of choice, and that the will was dependent on the intellect and determined by divine determination.
• Duns Scotus argued for indeterminism, stating that the intellect must be subordinate to the will, which has the power of complete self-determination, and that morality was the arbitrary creation of the divine will and not based on rational principles or knowledge.

Hobbes and Descartes

• Hobbes was a materialistic determinist who believed that ideas and volitions were ultimately movements of the brain, and that will was determined by external factors such as appetite or fear.
• Descartes believed in a form of freedom that was compatible with both determinism and indeterminism. He argued that the mind had the ability to refuse to affirm conclusions drawn from non-self-evident premises, and that the will had the power to refuse assent in order to prove its freedom.

Spinoza and Leibnitz

• Spinoza believed that the will is determined by ideas and that the concept of freedom in the moral sphere consists of the control of passions by reason.
• Leibnitz believed in moral freedom and the spontaneity of moral agents, but also in a divine pre-established harmony that determines the agreement between the acts of his monads. As a result, Leibnitz’s position is effectively deterministic.

Locke and Hume

• According to Locke, freedom belongs to the person, not the will. An act of will is free if it expresses a purpose, and the will is determined by the desire to avoid pain.
• Hume’s view on freedom follows from his theory of causality. If our belief in necessary connection in the physical world is an illusion, the opposition between freedom and necessity is also illusory. If our belief in causal necessity is the result of custom, then the belief in necessity governing human actions is also due to custom. In contrast, the belief in freedom is illusory and, if extended to the belief that actions do not come from character or habitual disposition, is immoral.

Kant

• Kant distinguishes between two worlds: the sensuous (or phenomenal) and the intelligible (or noumenal).
• Kant allows no freedom to the natural will, which is determined by the succession of desires, motives, and appetites that make up the empirical self.
• In contrast, Kant believes that in the noumenal and intelligible world, people are free to accept the moral command of an unconditional imperative for no reason other than its own rational necessity, which represents the highest nature of the individual.
• The difficulties of Kant’s system lie in his explanation of the relationship between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds.

Modern materialism

• In more recent times, the controversy about the freedom of the will has focused on the attempted proof of determinism by psychological hedonism, which is now generally believed to have failed. It has also considered the impact of heredity and environment on the development of character and the possibility of freedom.
• The advances of biological knowledge in recent times have made complete individual freedom (as understood by older libertarians) highly unlikely. Instead, advocates of freedom now posit a relative power to influence conduct, such as the ability to control inherited temperament or suppress natural passions.
• Modern materialism is more nuanced than that of Hobbes and does not deny the reality of conscious processes. It acknowledges the relative independence of the world of consciousness, but maintains that laws and hypotheses sufficient to explain material processes can be extended to and will be found to be valid for the changing sequences of conscious states of mind.
• Some proponents of materialism argue that any theory that assumes a direct correspondence between the molecular movements of the brain and the accompanying states of consciousness must make the freedom of the will impossible. Others assert that the freedom of the will is incompatible with the principle of the conservation of energy and contradicts many of the conclusions of the physical sciences.

Objections to materialism

• It has not been proven that consciousness is a secretion of the brain or an effect or consequence of material processes or modes of motion. There is no direct causal relationship between a molecular movement and a state of consciousness, and no one has been able to accurately predict an individual’s future mental states based on examination of their brain.
• While some kind of correspondence between the physical and conscious series of states has been observed, there is no proof that an exact correspondence exists, and the nature of the correspondence is unclear.
• The belief that material processes can explain all material changes in the human body, as well as all other parts of the material world, can be held independently of any specific theory of the relationship between mind and body. This belief, which is prevalent in modern science, is destructive of the belief in the freedom of the will.
• If consciousness is seen as an epiphenomenon accompanying the succession of material changes, it becomes impossible to think of human volition actively interfering at any point within the physical series or of consciousness having any control or directing efficacy over the material changes that accompany it.
• There are difficulties with the idea that the changes in the brain can be satisfactorily explained by mechanical and mathematical concepts, or that any of these organic changes can ultimately be explained by purely material premises. The phenomena of life, growth, and assimilation have not been adequately explained as mechanical modes of motion, and the fact that identical cerebral movements do not recur makes scientific and accurate prediction of future cerebral changes impossible.
• The evidence of ordinary consciousness suggests that consciousness is not a byproduct of brain activity and that the will is not determined by preceding physical events.
• There are arguments against the compatibility of determinism and moral responsibility, including the idea that if determinism is true, it would be pointless to try to change one’s character or actions.

Modern psychology

• The deterministic assumptions of psychology, which involve applying the causal concepts of modern science to mental phenomena, have not always hindered the use of new information about mental processes to prove the reality of freedom.
• Psychology has contributed to the solution of the problem by criticizing the false assumptions about conative processes and the phenomena of choice that are common to both determinists and libertarians.
• Recent psychologists have revealed the unity of the self and have carefully examined the phenomena of decision, making it no longer possible for determinists to deny the existence of choice or for libertarians to see the self or will as isolated from and unaffected by other mental factors and antecedents.
• Freedom of choice, if it exists at all, must be seen as a characteristic of a person’s entire personality, displayed in all conscious conative processes, but especially apparent in situations requiring deliberate and serious purpose.
• Earlier advocates of determinism made the mistake of trying to explain self-conscious moral action using the same categories and hypotheses used to explain causal sequences in the physical world.
• Both determinists and libertarians have made the mistake of treating will, self, character, or the strongest motive as permanent causes manifesting themselves through a series of changes that are governed by the laws of the individual’s personality development.

Objections to libertarianism

• If libertarians argue that the self or will makes decisions and inclines towards certain motives without any explanation of how it does so, they are open to the retort that their theory does not provide a rational explanation of conduct.
• The idea that a particular decision is the result of the “fiat” of an unmotivated and uninfluenced self or will is equivalent to saying that the choice was made or the decision taken without any further explanation.
• This theory does not provide evidence for or against the possibility of freedom.

Idealism

• Idealism is a philosophical position that emphasizes the role of consciousness and subjective experience in shaping reality.
• The doctrine of self-determination, advocated by certain idealist philosophers, holds that conduct is not determined in the same way as movements in the physical world because consciousness allows individuals to distinguish themselves from purely natural desires.
• Self-consciousness is related to both the empirical self (which has a history in time) and the natural organism in which it exists, but the precise nature of this relationship is unclear in idealist philosophy.
• Idealist writers often argue that true freedom can only be achieved by a self that is liberated from irrational passions and the influence of chance or unknown natural forces through knowledge and moralization.
• Human freedom is relative and requires effort to be achieved, but it must also exhibit the gradual development of a self that has the same liberty of choice at all stages.
• The idea that freedom is limited to the choice of what is strictly good or rational may undermine the responsibility for choosing evil.

The ethical problem

• The belief in free will is essential for the meaning and significance of morality.
• Without free will, the concept of moral obligation loses its meaning and the domain of necessity would encompass the will.
• The appeal to the witness of the moral consciousness is often made to support the belief in the freedom to choose between alternatives.
• Scientific proof of free will is impossible because it would bring the whole personality or some element of it within the chain of natural causes and effects, undermining the freedom of consciousness.
• The science of morality must recognize the rationality of choice as a real determining factor in human affairs, and an adequate theory of moral consciousness must consider the self as potentially free to choose.

Determinist ethics

• Determinists argue against the belief in free will and present evidence to show that it is not necessary for moral action.
• Older determinists denied the absoluteness and intuitive character of moral obligation and did not attach validity to terms like “ought” and “duty.”
• Modern determinists try to show that morality is compatible with the absence of free will or that it is even enhanced by the acceptance of a deterministic view of conduct.

Punishment

• Punishment may be justified for the purposes of deterrence or reform, rather than as retribution for past actions.
• Belief in the freedom of the will may lead to difficulties in justifying punishment, as it is possible for an individual to change their character and actions.
• Determinist theories, which hold that actions are necessarily determined by motives and incentives, may provide a more rational basis for punishment and state activity.
• The aim of punishment should be to influence future conduct for the good of the individual or society.

Remorse

• Remorse is a feeling of regret or guilt for something one has done wrong
• Determinism is the belief that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by previously existing causes.
• Some argue that determinism is incompatible with the existence of remorse or penitence, because it suggests that individuals do not have free will and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions.
• Others argue that determinism does not necessarily negate the existence of remorse or the potential for personal growth and change, as feelings of remorse can be seen as the result of past actions and as evidence of the presence of motives for good behavior in the individual.
• The libertarian argument for free will holds that individuals have the ability to make choices that are not determined by past causes or external factors
• The compatibilist argument suggests that free will and determinism can coexist, as free will can be understood as the ability to act freely within the constraints of one’s character, desires, and environment.
• The concept of responsibility is closely tied to the idea of free will and the belief that individuals can be held accountable for their actions.

The free-will position

• The free-will position holds that individuals have the ability to make choices that are not determined by past causes or external factors
• This belief is supported by the immediate consciousness of freedom that individuals experience when making decisions
• Determinists argue that this consciousness of freedom is an illusion, but the free-will position asserts that this belief has not been successfully proven and that feelings of remorse and penitence suggest that individuals are indeed held responsible for their actions
• The free-will position also points to the fact that introspective analysis does not reveal chains of necessary sequences in the domain of consciousness, as is observed in the physical world through scientific investigation
• Until determinists can successfully explain how the consciousness of freedom could arise in a world governed by necessary laws and limited to the exhibition of causal sequences, the free-will position asserts that we should trust our immediate affirmation of our moral selves and our belief in free will.