Introduction

“Do we have free will?”

You might have heard this question before. It’s a typical ‘philosophical question’: maybe one you’ve thought about late at night, wondering if anything in this life is down to you. Do we really have control over our actions, or is everything we do just part of a chain of events we can’t escape? Are criminals morally responsible for their actions, or are they just byproducts of a bad childhood?

In this piece, I’m breaking down the battle between three big ideas: hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Each offers a different take on what “free will” is, and if we can even possess such an elusive concept.

I hope you enjoy reading — whether you’ve clicked on this article out of your ‘free will’ or not.

Hard Determinism

Think of a decision you’ve made recently.

What time you woke up this morning. Whether you snoozed the alarm or jumped out of bed. What you made yourself for breakfast, what you’re going to have for lunch.

And now think about why you made that particular decision.

I woke up promptly today, at 7:15 in the morning. I’d slept well, because I had taken magnesium the night before, and I’d taken magnesium because the doctor recommended it, because she’d gone through medical school, because she’d always liked biology, because her father was a doctor, because… The list of “becauses” goes on. Point is, there always seems to be a cause for a decision. I woke up at 7:15 today because of this string of previous events, all lined up neatly to create the circumstances needed for me to wake up at this hour. All events are caused by something.

Okay, you think, seems logical. 

Let’s add another groundbreaking idea to the table: the past is unchangeable.

Yes, you’re nodding now, frowning slightly, that also seems logical. We haven’t discovered time-travel, that I know of.

So the past is unchangeable, and the past determines the present; in other words, we can’t change the present, because we can’t change the past. What a dilemma! The way we’re raised, the things we’re exposed to, the values we inherit — they all define our current decisions. So can I even make a choice, or is there just one, inevitable future laid out for me? Unfortunately, the determinist affirms the latter— meaning that you have no free will.

In summary, this theory says whatever decision we take is based on antecedent events and natural laws. This idea, quite fittingly, is called causal determinism. 

One problem, though. Let’s say you and I are having a philosophical debate, chatting amicably over coffee. Unfortunately, this debate ends with me punching you in the face. Maybe I’ve been brought up violently; maybe you’ve said something terribly amoral. Either way, every past event I’ve experienced has determined this to be the only inevitable outcome of our conversation. When you complain about your broken nose, I simply say I have to act this way. I am not to blame for my past environments. I’m not morally responsible for the pain I’ve inflicted. In fact, I shouldn’t be punished at all, because I’m just a manifestation of events I have no control over.

It’s obvious where the issue is here. I might’ve had a rough childhood, but I still broke your nose.

By denying free will, the hard determinist denies moral responsibility. We’re in a bit of a pickle now, so let’s jump over to the other side of the spectrum.

Randomness and The Libertarian

We’re making a quick detour— all the way to physics, actually. Quantum mechanics seems to play a part in this debate. This practice involves examining tiny micro-particles (quarks), and calculating the possibility of finding a particle in a particular location. Physicists can’t know for sure where a particle is going to be, so they simply calculate the probability of it being there. (Physicists — do correct me if I’m wrong.) There’s a certain randomness, or unpredictability, of particles, that goes against traditional deterministic laws of physics. So if these quarks can behave non-deterministically, why can’t we, on a larger scale? What would be the implications of that?

This brings me onto the topic of libertarianism. The libertarian is on the opposite side of the spectrum to the determinist. Libertarians believe we have total free will, and deny causal determinism as a result. The agent-causal argument goes as follows:

• Agents (individuals) are special. We are “prime movers”; our decisions don’t need to be caused by events. 

In other words, individuals possess the unique power to act independently of external causes, free from the constraints of past events or natural laws. In this view, we are the originators of our actions, so we can be held morally responsible for broken noses.

But what makes us special? Why are we exempt from natural laws? This view is flawed, and backing it up is difficult. 

Plus, if no event was caused by anything, this implies a degree of randomness. If I randomly decided what movie to watch today, free of any cause, this means I wouldn’t be taking my personal preferences into account. My taste has evolved based on past experiences; if I took a completely, and utterly, uncaused decision, would I freely be choosing a movie? If the particles in my brain aligned randomly and caused me to punch you  — is that really ‘free will?’

So that’s the determinist dilemma. On one hand, if everything’s caused by something, we lose freedom and moral responsibility. On the other hand, if events happen without a cause, they’re still unfree, because we haven’t caused them. 

Compatibilism

Maybe the problem isn’t whether the universe is deterministic or not. Right now, we’ve been looking at determinism and free will as incompatible, because we’ve defined free will to be ‘uncaused’. 

If we approached free will differently, we could tweak its meaning slightly. Instead of it being uncaused, we might define a ‘free’ decision as one made based on our own individual desires or beliefs, and not being coerced/impeded by outside factors. This means as long as there’s no physical obstacle to making a choice, the choices we make are free, even if they are caused by previous events. If we take ‘free will’ to be this idea, free will and determinism can coexist peacefully in a realm known as compatibilism. 

What? I can hear you say from the other side of the screen. 

I’ll explain. Let’s go through another example— no broken noses, this time.

I wake up on a sunny morning and I get out of my bed. I have two choices: I go on a walk or I don’t go on a walk, and for whatever reason, I decide to go on a walk.

A determinist would say: you’ve been raised by outdoorsy parents, you think walking is good for your health, and you have some spare time this morning. All of these ‘influences’ per se have in turn been caused by something else. For example, your parents’ parents might have also been outdoorsy types, or your free morning might have been free because you decided to quit your job a week ago. Your decision to go on a walk was determined by past events: there was never a possibility of you not going on a walk this morning.

On the other hand, a libertarian would say: you deciding to go on a walk was 100% your decision. Your Real You decided it for itself, and it was an entirely random, unpredictable decision, much like if you hadn’t gone on a walk. (Again: if it was completely random, was it really your decision? And what’s a ‘Real You’, anyway?)

Now, let’s look at compatibilism. A compatibilist would say: Your choice to go on a walk was a free choice, because there was nothing external stopping you from making a choice. If you had stayed at home because there had been a snowstorm, that wouldn’t have been a free choice. If you had been hypnotised to go on a walk, that wouldn’t have been a free choice, either.

There is a difference, then, between freedom of will and freedom of action— and the compatibilist suggests that ‘free will’ is ‘freedom of action’. Your choice to go on a walk might have been influenced by past experiences, but there is nothing physically stopping you from staying at home.

The Real Stuff

This is an interesting theory and all, but does it actually matter? I won’t say it’s the top of our list of priorities to sort out, but it does have some real-life implications.

Think of TikTok.

It might seem weird to link a thousands-year old debate to TikTok. But think about it: do recommendation algorithms physically keep people scrolling? If they’re capable of altering chemicals in our brains, injecting surges of dopamine to the youth, there’s definitely something going on on a neurobiological level that’s keeping you hooked. You might think you’re making a free choice to swipe on a video, but the whole structure of social media revolves around diminishing our freedom of action. They’re the hypnotisers, in a way— and isn’t that against free will? While these social media creators might not be physically holding you hostage, the chemicals they induce produce a similar effect of ‘entrapment’. Isn’t that the same as an external obstruction?

Recommendation algorithms seem entirely deterministic, too. Their current recommendations are based on your past interactions— a chain of causes that leads you to watch that very video. Except this time, these causes don’t obey the natural laws of physics. They obey the ‘law’ of whoever programmed the algorithm, if that can even be proved. If we exist in a determinist universe, at least we all work under universal laws (e.g. gravity) — but in the ‘social media’ universe, these laws are dictated by particular engineers. All it takes is for one of them to think “I prefer money over ethics” and send a whole generation of kids spiralling.

Conclusion

So, do we have free will, or are we just passengers on a ride we can’t control? After exploring hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism, it seems the answer is anything but simple. Determinists argue that every choice we make is predetermined by a chain of past events, leaving us with no real control. Libertarians push back, claiming we’re free agents capable of making uncaused decisions. And compatibilists? Well, they offer a middle ground, suggesting that free will might exist—just in a different form than we first thought.

What’s clear is that this debate isn’t just about abstract ideas. It trickles into real-life issues, like who’s responsible for our actions or even how tech shapes our behaviour. Whether you’re scrolling through TikTok or deciding what to do next, these philosophical questions might be more relevant than they seem.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my take on free will — and are left with something to ponder! 

See you soon!