Do We Actually Have Free Will?
I think one of the biggest problems with free will is that we tend to assume we are responsible for our decisions simply because we are the ones making them. If I choose to lie, I am responsible for the lie because I decided to do it. If I work hard, I deserve credit because I chose to put in the effort. On the surface, this makes sense. But I think there is a deeper question that we rarely consider: How much control do we really have over the person making those decisions?
Every decision I make comes from something. My choices reflect my personality, my beliefs, my desires, my memories, and the way I process information. When I make a decision, I am not choosing from nowhere. I am choosing based on the person I already am. The problem is that I did not ultimately choose that person.
I did not choose my genetics, my initial temperament, the family I was born into, or the experiences that shaped my earliest beliefs. I did not decide what would frighten me, what would motivate me, or how easily I would regulate my emotions. These things influence how I interpret situations and what choices seem reasonable to me. Obviously, they do not determine every aspect of my behavior in an obvious or predictable way, but they help shape the person who makes my decisions.
Someone might argue that this does not matter because I can reflect on myself and change. I can recognize that I have a bad habit, decide that I want to improve, and actively work toward becoming a better person. I agree that people can do these things. But I do not think this solves the problem. My ability to recognize my flaws depends on my capacity for self-reflection. My motivation to improve depends on my desires, values, and experiences. Even my willingness to listen to criticism depends partly on the person I already am.
If I change because of an experience that makes me reconsider my beliefs, I did not choose the experience itself. If I change because someone presents me with a convincing argument, I did not independently create my ability to understand that argument or determine what I find convincing. I can participate in changing myself without being the ultimate origin of the factors that make that change possible.
This creates a problem of ultimate responsibility. If I am responsible for my choices because they reflect my character, then it seems reasonable to ask whether I am responsible for the character that produced them. If my character was shaped by earlier experiences and decisions, I can ask what caused those decisions. If I keep tracing the process backward, I eventually reach factors I did not choose.
I cannot solve this problem simply by saying that I chose to become the person I am. To make that choice, I would already need some personality, some set of desires, and some way of evaluating my options. I would need to be someone before I could decide who to become. But if I did not choose the characteristics I started with, how can I be ultimately responsible for what I made of them?
This is why I struggle with the idea that people are the ultimate authors of themselves. I can be the person who makes a decision without being the person who created every factor that led me to make it.
Biology makes this question even more difficult. Our brains are physical organs that develop through an interaction between genetics and the environment. The abilities we use to make decisions, including impulse control, planning, emotional regulation, and reasoning, develop over time. People do not all begin with the same capacities, and nobody chooses the circumstances in which those capacities first develop.
The case of Phineas Gage is an especially interesting example. In 1848, Gage survived an accident in which an iron rod passed through his skull and damaged parts of his brain. Historical accounts describe changes in his personality and behavior following the injury, although some popular versions of his story exaggerate how dramatic or permanent those changes were. His case nevertheless became an important example of the relationship between the brain and personality.
What I find philosophically significant about Gage is not simply that a brain injury can change someone’s behavior. It is that changing the physical brain can change the person making the decisions. If the brain plays such an important role in personality, judgment, and self-control, then our choices are not produced by some completely independent self that exists outside the conditions shaping it.
This does not prove that free will is impossible. It does, however, challenge the idea that we have complete control over ourselves. If a person’s decision-making can be affected by changes to their brain, then the abilities and characteristics that influence their choices are not entirely independent of their physical circumstances.
The same problem appears when we consider the relationship between determinism and randomness.
If determinism is true, then our decisions follow from previous conditions and the laws of nature. Given exactly the same past and the same laws, only one outcome would be possible. If every decision results from conditions that existed before it, then it becomes difficult to explain how we could have ultimately chosen otherwise under those exact same conditions.
But rejecting determinism does not automatically solve the problem. Some events may involve randomness or indeterminacy. Yet an unpredictable decision is not necessarily a freely chosen one. If some part of my decision occurs by chance, that does not explain how I control that part of the outcome.
Get theexaminedlife2’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I struggle to see how either possibility establishes ultimate control. If my decision is fully determined by prior conditions, I did not ultimately originate those conditions. If it is partly random, randomness alone does not make me its author. Simply introducing uncertainty into the process does not explain how I become responsible for the process itself.
Of course, there is an important objection to this argument. Someone could say that free will does not require being the ultimate cause of yourself. Perhaps I act freely whenever I can consider my options, respond to reasons, and act according to my own intentions without being forced by someone else. Under this view, my decisions can have causes and still be meaningfully mine. This is a version of compatibilism, a philosophical position that attempts to reconcile free will with determinism.
There is a real difference between someone acting because they have considered their options and someone acting under direct coercion. We should recognize differences in people’s ability to reason, understand consequences, and control their behavior. I am not arguing that all actions are identical or that people have no influence over what they do.
But I think this objection changes the question rather than completely answering it. It explains what might make a decision voluntary, but it does not establish that I am ultimately responsible for the person who makes it. I can act according to my own desires, but I did not ultimately choose those desires. I can respond to reasons, but I did not create my capacity to understand them. I can resist an impulse, but my ability to do so also has a history shaped by factors outside my ultimate control.
Maybe this is enough for a practical definition of free will. But I think it is different from the stronger idea that people are ultimately responsible for who they are and what they choose.
This distinction becomes especially important when we consider morality. If we do not possess ultimate free will, does that mean personal responsibility does not exist?
I do not think it necessarily does. If someone lies to a friend, the betrayal still happens. If someone hurts another person, the harm does not disappear simply because their behavior had causes. We can still expect people to recognize the consequences of their actions, take responsibility for the harm they cause, and make efforts to change.
However, I think we need to reconsider what we mean when we say that someone deserves blame or punishment. There is a difference between holding someone accountable and believing that they deserve to suffer simply because they are ultimately responsible for being the kind of person they are.
Consequences can serve important purposes. They can protect people, discourage harmful behavior, encourage reflection, and help prevent someone from causing harm again. If our behavior is influenced by causes, then accountability can become one of those causes, influencing how we act in the future. We do not have to believe that someone is the ultimate origin of their behavior to recognize that their actions matter.
In fact, I think this perspective could make our understanding of responsibility more thoughtful. Instead of asking only whether someone deserves to suffer for what they did, we could also ask what contributed to their behavior, how the harm can be addressed, and what might prevent it from happening again. Understanding the causes of someone’s actions does not mean excusing those actions. It means recognizing that preventing harm may require more than simply blaming the person who caused it.
The strongest challenge to this position is that people can still be responsible even if they did not create themselves. Perhaps responsibility only requires that someone understand what they are doing, act intentionally, and have the ability to respond to reasons. I recognize that this is a serious argument, and I do not think the debate can be settled simply by pointing out that our decisions have causes.
But I keep returning to the same question: If I did not ultimately choose the characteristics, abilities, desires, and circumstances that shaped my decisions, what makes me ultimately deserving of praise or blame for those decisions?
I can accept that my choices are mine in the sense that they come from my own thoughts and intentions. I can accept that my actions have consequences and that I have reasons to reflect on them. What I struggle to accept is the idea that I am the ultimate source of myself, independent of the factors that made me who I am.
I am not claiming that this proves every form of free will is impossible. Philosophers disagree about what free will actually requires, and some definitions may be compatible with the fact that our decisions have causes. But I think the idea of ultimate free will faces a serious problem that cannot be solved simply by saying that we make our own choices.
My conclusion is that we may have the ability to make decisions without possessing ultimate control over the factors that produce them. We can reason, reflect, change, and influence our behavior, but those abilities are themselves shaped by a history we did not ultimately choose. We may be the immediate causes of our actions without being their ultimate causes.
And if that is true, then perhaps the most important question is not whether we make choices, but whether making choices is enough to make us ultimately responsible for ourselves.
I do not think it is.
