The Problem of Free Will
Free will implies the possibilities open to the individual and the available action choices. The compatibility of freedom as a personality trait with determinism raises the problem of compatibilism. The central question is the definition of free will through its relationship to metaphysics. The nature of the motive for action – a person’s desire – is uncertain. Therefore, an essential need for free will is the autonomy of choice and its consistency with the individual’s desires (Smith). It raises the question of the degree of truth of determinism and its compatibility with free will in terms of compatibilism.
From the view of compatibilism, free will is not synonymous with the possibility of making a different choice in an identical situation. It means that compatibilists restrict choice to a single possible decision. From a metaphysical point of view, it is wrong, but when evaluated on other grounds, this definition is logically correct (Dew & Gould, 2019). The problem with compatibilism is limiting the notion of choice and will. Thus, the truth of determinism lies in the interconnectedness of all phenomena. Human choice is not the problem but a consequence of limiting the notion of choice incompatibilism.
A Defense of Free Will
Freedom of choice, bad or good, defines the world as the condition of any being. The decisions of human beings change the environment; that is, their degree of freedom determines the becoming of the world. In my view, a strong defense of free will is Plantinigas’ argument that evil is not a contradiction of free will. The divine, if it exists, also chose to create the world and give freedom to human beings, but the choices they make do not amount to the will of God. It means that God could not force the agents to do only good because that would limit their freedom. Agents are morally responsible for their evil and thus have free will. In this regard, Plantinigi rejects compatibilism because it points to evil as an intolerable volition of liberty. Therefore, the defense of free will lies in the argument for the impossibility of people influencing one another because otherwise, it would limit them.
Free Will is an Attribute of the Human Person
Free will is an enormous part of the human person, for, through it, the person’s comfort and quality of life grow. It is a prerequisite for the development of moral responsibility, which is compatible with the causal closure of the physical world. To act free means to conform to the metaphysical conditions of moral responsibility for one’s action (Linjamaa, 2019). Epistemic conditions of duty are also indispensable for forming a coherent human personality. Failure to recognize the existence of free will is not synonymous with its absence because the choice of the act is always there. It means that the framework available in the choice to act is a natural part of free will, indicating its closure is a standard feature of human personality.
The human personality is considered free and independent if it can take action based on a plurality of choices. In the absence of this choice, persons would not be considered free because they would not have access to something. Free will becomes the leading attribute of the individual’s formation because it creates a quality of life (Dew & Gould, 2019). Free will amounts to overcoming the determinacy of the activity of the individual, that is, the expansion of possibilities. In this regard, highlighting free will as part of the personality implies its logical stage of development. It begins to determine moral responsibility and, thus, the life of the individual.
References
Dew, J. K. Jr. & Gould, P. M. (2019). Philosophy: A Christian Introduction. Baker Academic.
Linjamaa, P. (2019). Free will and the configuration of the human mind. In The ethics of the tripartite tractate: A study of determinism and early Christian philosophy of ethics (pp. 112-156). Brill.
Smith, K. Freedom and determinism conflict.