"Free Will" - in scare quotes - refers to the common but mistaken notion that the adjective "free" modifies the concept "will." In particular, it indicates that the element of
chance, one of the
two requirements for free will is present in the determination of the will itself.
Critics of "libertarian free will" usually adopt this meaning in order to attack the idea of randomness in our decisions, which clearly would not help to make us
morally responsible.
Unfortunately, even defenders of libertarian free will (
Robert Kane, for example) continue to add indeterminism into the decision itself, making such free will "unintelligible" by their own account.
Despite their claim that they are better equipped than scientists to make conceptual distinctions and evaluate the cogency of arguments, professional philosophers have mistakenly conflated the concepts of "free" and "will." They (con)fuse them with the muddled term "free will," despite clear warnings from
John Locke that this would lead to confusion.
Locke said very clearly, as had some ancients like
Lucretius, it is not the will that is free (in the sense of undetermined), it is the mind.
John Locke liked the idea of Freedom and Liberty. He thought it was inappropriate to describe the Will itself as Free. The Will is a Determination. It is the Man who is Free. "I think the question is not proper, whether the will be free, but whether a man be free." "This way of talking, nevertheless, has prevailed, and, as I guess, produced great confusion," he said. It has and still does produce confusion
In chapter XXI, Of Power, in his
Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke calls the question of Freedom of the Will
unintelligible. But for Locke, it is only because the adjective "free" applies to the agent, not to the will, which is determined by the mind, and determines the action.
Concerning a man's liberty, there yet, therefore, is raised this further question, Whether a man be free to will? which I think is what is meant, when it is disputed whether the will be free. (s.22)
This, then, is evident, That a man is not at liberty to will, or not to will, anything in his power. (s.24)
Freedom of human action requires the randomness of absolute chance to break the causal chain of determinism, yet the conscious knowledge that we are
adequately determined to be responsible for our choices.
Freedom requires some events that are not causally determined by immediately preceding events, events that are unpredictable by any agency, events involving quantum uncertainty. These random events create
alternative possibilities for action.
Randomness is the "free" in free will.
In short, there must be a
Randomness Requirement, unpredictable
chance events that break the causal chain of determinism. Without this chance, our actions are simply the consequences of events in the remote past. This randomness must be
located in a place and time that enhances free will, one that does not reduce it to pure chance.
(Determinists do not like this requirement.)
Freedom also requires an adequately determined will that chooses or selects from those alternative possibilities. There is effectively nothing uncertain about this choice.
Adequate determinism is the "will" in free will.
So there is also a
Determinism Requirement - that our actions be adequately determined by our character and values. This requires that any randomness not be the
direct cause of our actions. (Libertarians do not like this requirement.)
Adequate determinism means that randomness in our thoughts about alternative possibilities
does not directly cause our actions.
A random thought can lead to a determined action, for which we can take
full responsibility.
We must admit indeterminism
but not permit it to produce random actions
as Determinists mistakenly fear.
We must also limit determinism
but not eliminate it as Libertarians mistakenly think necessary.
Philosophers of logic and language are further muddled in their argument that if
is true. This is of course
correct. Strict causal determinism with a causal chain of necessary events back to an Aristotelian first cause is indeed false, and modern philosophers know it, though most hold out hope that the quantum mechanical basis of such indeterminism will be disproved someday. Many analytic simply declare themselves
on the truth or falsity of determinism, missing the empirical point.
requires that since determinism and indeterminism are logical contradictories, only one of them can be true. The law of the excluded middle allows no third possibility. Now since neither determinism nor indeterminism allow the kind of free will that supports moral responsibility, they claim that free will is unintelligible or an
. This is the
The practical empirical situation is much more complex than such simple black and white logical linguistic thinking can comprehend. Despite quantum uncertainty, there is clearly
in the world, enough to permit the near-perfect predictions of celestial motions, and good enough to send men to the moon and back. But this "near" (
and Leucippus.
When we unpack the complex concept of "free will," we find the freedom is in our thoughts, the determination is in our willed acts.
, "Free Will" combines two distinct concepts. Free is the
and randomness of the Micro Mind. Will is the adequately determined
of the Macro Mind. And these occur in a