For thousands of years people have sought to find the answer to the question of free will. The topic of free will is one that has inspired a few theories among the greatest of thinkers, and is still a hot topic of debate amongst modern day philosophers. Of all of the theories on free will, compatibilism is the most ideal theory in that it acknowledges that some things happen beyond our control due to external forces, but also that we have the ability to make choices when we could have chosen to do otherwise. To truly understand Compatibilism, we must first look at what exactly compatibilism is, the ideas from compatibilist philosophers, what makes compatibilism the ideal theory of free will, and the importance of moral responsibility and how it is linked to free will.
Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is defined by the text book is “the view that although determinism is true, our actions can still be free” (Vaughn 2019, 221). Just as there are multiple theories about free will, compatibilist philosophers each have a unique take on compatibilism, however they all agree on the fundamental idea that determinism and free will are compatible and that we are free because we can chose to do otherwise if we desire to do so. John Locke explains how determinism does not block free will by explaining that though our mind is always determined, it is us who has the power or the liberty to act or not act according to our desires (Vaughn 2019, 229). Those who believe that free will is made possible in the sense that if we desired to do something differently, we could have done otherwise.
To gain a greater understanding of compatibilism, we must examine the ideas of philosophers who were compatibilists, such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Walter Stace. “A person’s freedom consists in his finding no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do” (McKenna and Coates). That was a quote from Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher who supports the idea of compatibilism. What Hobbes means by this statement is that doing what one wills is in the power in the agency and unobstructed. Hobbes’ statement is one that echos how many classical compatibilists viewed freedom. Unlike most compatibilists however, Hobbes believes that the idea that anyone “could do otherwise” is a contradiction. Many recognize David Hume for his influential statement on compatibilism in the debate about free will. David Hume agreed that freedom and moral responsibility can be reconciled with causal determinism. Humes defines liberty as the power of acting or not acting, dependent on the determination of our will, and that this liberty is universal for everyone who is not a prisoner in chains (Mckenna and Coates). Walter Staces’ stance on compatibilism is that for an act to be free it must be desired or willed by the agent. Stace differentiates between free acts and unfree acts in according to their causes. Stace believed that the characteristic involved in free acts is that they are caused by desire or motives while in unfree act the causes were physical forces or conditions outside of the agent (vaughn 2019, 230)
To understand why compatibilism is the best theory on free will, we must look at the other theories and why they pale in comparison. Determinism is defined as the doctrine that every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature (Vaughn 2019, 220), in other words we have no say or choice in anything because everything we do is a result of a causal sequence that begins even before we come to be. Determinists say science supports their view that determinism is true when in fact, quantum physics has disproved their theory. Aside from that, one problem with determinism is that it leaves no room for moral responsibility. If someone commits murder, a determinist could argue that they cannot be held responsible for this crime because it was external causes that lead up to and caused the person to commit murder. By eliminating moral responsibility, this stance also eliminates the ability of choice. What Determinism over looks is that while yes, some people who grew up in a toxic environment of abuse and continued the cycle of abuse, others have chosen to break the cycle and strive to live a better life. Not every person who grew up in toxic environments becomes the next serial killer.
Next, we must take a look at libertarianism, or the view that some actions are free, for they are caused or controlled by the person or agent (Vaughn 2019, 222). Although this theory sounds well enough by definition, while the determinist gives too much credit to external causes determining what happens to us, the libertarian disregards external causes too much. The libertarian also struggles to explain how free will is possible while rejecting deterministic causes. The libertarian believes that our own experiences are proof enough that it is us that makes the choices in our lives, but also admit that this can be faulty and that our experience can mislead us. Although Libertarianism promotes moral responsibility, they do not take into account that circumstances and can sometimes alter a persons life, when if given another circumstance that same person could have had a different out come. For example, take a normal healthy baby that the parents choose to ignore, never speaking to them or giving them attention. That baby as has been seen in many cases is now effected for the rest of their life, developmentally behind others the same age, when if it weren’t for those external causes (negligent parents) the baby could have been normal otherwise.
Compatibilism, unlike determinism allows one to take moral responsibility for their actions. According to information philosopher.com, compatibilists argue that there has to be a causal connection between our will and our actions, allowing us to take moral responsibility whether it is credit for good actions or blame for the bad ones. Compatibilists recognize that one of the requirements for moral responsibility is in fact free will. David Hume’s position in ethics gives more insight into the compatibilist view on moral responsibility. “Hume argues that the causal necessity of human actions is not only compatible with moral responsibility but requisite to it” ( Cohan). In regard to justice for one to take responsibility when they have chosen to break the law, Thomas Hobbes theory of punishment deals with the justice question of free will. Hobbes explains that to be subject to civil law, one must freely have consented to the law, meanwhile with the laws of nature, there is no punishment because one does not consent to the laws of nature. So since a person freely consents to be subject to civil law then they are to be held accountable for their actions and should be punished if they do wrong.
Compatibilism can also be tied with the belief in God. As theologists explain, Compatibilism seeks to show that God’s sovereignty is compatible with human freedom. That God influences our desires but does not control them and it is up to us to choose to either act on those desires or ignore them, This take on compatibilism also allows man to take responsibility for their sins instead of putting the blame on God. “The evil nature of man was not created by God, but is a corruption of God’s good creation” (theopedia.com). God allows sin but is not the cause of sin, it is the sinful desires of man that is the cause, and therefore mans responsibility. Some scriptural support for this notion can be found in Matthew 7:15-20 in which Jesus says that healthy trees cannot produce diseased fruit. In other words, if we remain sinful we will continue to make bad choices, the same goes with good choices and behavior.
One of the reasons the question of freedom has been one that people still try to find the answers for today is that whether we believe that we are free or not can determine how we view other aspects of life. Whether we see ourselves as free can effect whether we are self aware and even the way we view life itself. A person who acknowledges free will and the possibility of choice is likely to have a sense of self awareness. From the stance of compatibilism, it can be argued that while cause and effect sequence could be responsible for circumstantial reasons for our choices, we still have the ability to choose. It is this awareness of choice that enables one to be self aware of themselves. This ability of choice also means that there are possibilities in which we choose from. Being aware of our ability to choose and have the responsibility of choice makes us responsible agents. “As responsible agents, human beings can create purpose in their lives by conceivably choosing from various possibilities at various choice posts that lead to particular micro-fates” (Soete).
From a compatibilist point of view, it is easy to gravitate towards a theory of optimism when it comes to the meaning of life, as compatibilism supports the option of choice, however, it is also the external circumstances of our lives that can also influence the way we view life. This sense of choice may lead a person to view the meaning of life through the theory of internals in which the meaning of life is up to the individual. Compatibilists may see themselves as a physical being rather than just a soul in a body. As for how spirituality comes into play in all of this, compatibilism fits well with most doctrines on God.
In short, compatibilism is the most logical theory when it comes to free will. Compatibilism seems to be the middle between two extremes. Free will is possible because we could always choose to do otherwise if we so desired. Compatibilism allows for individuals to be held accountable for their choices and gives us a sense of moral responsibility. Compatibilism also fits well in regard to Gods role in our lives as well as our own roles when it comes to life. Compatibilism answers questions about events that are caused externally as well as events caused by our own choices and therefore is the most ideal theory to explain this subject. No matter what stance one chooses on the topic of free will, it is clear that our choices on this matter will continue to influence the way we view other areas of philosophy.