Determinism and Free Will
(A Systematic Categorization of Concepts and Theories)
Introduction
Discussions on the topic of determinism and free will are often greatly complicated by
ambiguous or inconsistent use of terminology. There are many logically distinct concepts
that can at least arguably be classified under the categories of determinism and free
will, and many different theories about which of these various concepts are true and how
they relate to the moral significance of our choices. These concepts and theories have
unfortunately acquired various names over the years which are seldom related in a
systematic way, and often used differently by different people.
The following is my attempt to help clear up this confusion by categorizing the concepts
and theories in a logical, hierarchical fashion. I have tried to identify the most
commonly-used terms I could find for each category, but in some cases this was a rather
subjective exercise. The reader is therefore warned that some authors use some of these
terms differently from how I have defined them, and that in a few cases I have even had
to invent the terms myself. (These cases are labeled as “nonstandard
terminology” in my categorization below.)
My purpose here is only to clarify the terminology for philosophical and/or theological
discussions about determinism and free will, not to defend any particular point of view.
I do not think my own view on the subject has unfairly biased my arrangement and
discussion of the categories and terms, but in the interest of full disclosure I will
acknowledge up front that I am personally a compatibilist, as defined below.
Concepts of Determinism and Free Will
Root Category: Determinism
- Definition:
- Determinism is the idea that the entire future of the universe, including the future
choices (and therefore actions) of human beings, will come about necessarily.
This means that whatever will happen is inevitable—there is no chance that
it might not happen.
- Discussion:
- There are various conceptions as to the nature of the necessity or inevitability of
the future in determinism, which is the reason for the two general subcategories below.
Many people focus only on the first subcategory (causal determinism), and may not even
consider the second subcategory (logical determinism) to be a true species of determinism
at all. I think it is more logical and less confusing to include both of these
subcategories, however, so long as we are careful to recognize that when many people
speak of determinism they are specifically referring only to the first subcategory
(causal determinism).
- Subcategories:
1) Causal Determinism
- Definition:
- Causal determinism is the idea that the entire future of the universe, including the
future choices of human beings, is inevitable in that it is necessitated by a complete
causal connection to the past.
- Discussion:
- Causal determinism implies that the ultimate cause of every future event already
exists. In other words, there can be no uncaused or self-caused events. (Not since the
origin of the universe, at least—we leave aside the question of the cause of the
universe itself for the purpose of this analysis.)
- Subcategories:
1a) Physical Determinism (a.k.a. Scientific Determinism or
Nomological Determinism or Laplacian Determinism)
- Definition:
- Physical determinism is the idea that the entire future of the universe, including
the future choices of human beings, is causally determined by the current state of the
universe evolving in time via strict accordance with the laws of physics.
- Discussion:
- This is probably the most commonly discussed variety of determinism, and it is what
many philosophers and other people mean when they simply use the word determinism by
itself. It was most famously advocated by Pierre-Simon Laplace in the early 1800s, and was
generally held to be implied by science until the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early
1900s. Most current interpretations of quantum mechanics imply that physical determinism is
false, however. (Although some interpretations still imply that it is true, just like
Newtonian mechanics did.)
1b) Strong Theological Determinism (a.k.a. Predestination)
- Definition:
- Strong theological determinism is the idea that the entire future of the universe,
including the future choices of human beings, is causally determined by the eternal
“will” or “plan” or “decree” of God.
- Discussion:
- Theists who hold to strong theological determinism may also hold to physical
determinism as the means God uses to carry out his will, so these two subcategories of
causal determinism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Or these theists may deny
physical determinism and hold instead that God wills some events (such as human choices)
to occur apart from any physical causation. Either way, the main idea is that God is the
ultimate cause of every event, regardless of whether this ultimate causation is mediated
or unmediated through physical causation.
The term predestination is usually used as a synonym for strong theological
determinism, and it emphasizes the connotation that God’s will determines not only
the course of the physical universe, but ultimately also the destiny of individual human
beings after death. Some theological traditions use the word predestination in
reference to a more general idea that God has a good purpose in mind for the future
without actually having to causally determine every detail including the choices of human
beings, however.
2) Logical Determinism (a.k.a. Determinateness)
- Definition:
- Logical determinism is the idea that the future of the universe is inevitable in the
sense that there is an empirical fact of the matter as to what this future holds, even if
there is not (or is not yet) a cause for all of the events comprising this future.
- Discussion:
- Logical determinism differs from causal determinism in that it accepts the possibility
of uncaused or self-caused events in the future, yet it still sees a kind of necessity
guaranteeing that these events will occur. As mentioned above, not everyone considers this
idea a true species of determinism. This dispute also complicates the categorization of
the various concepts of free will and the various theories about determinism and free will
below.
- Subcategories:
2a) Spatio-temporal Determinism (a.k.a. Eternalism or
Block Universe)
- Definition:
- Spatio-temporal determinism is the idea that time is analogous to a spatial dimension,
at least in the particular sense that the future is “real,” meaning it exists
in some eternal fashion, so that there is a timeless fact of the matter as to what this
future holds.
- Discussion:
- This is probably the view of most current scientists because it seems to be implied
by Einstein’s theory of relativity, in that events that are considered simultaneous
in one reference frame are considered non-simultaneous in another. (Although some hold
that the equations of relativity can legitimately be interpreted in an admittedly
non-intuitive way that does not actually require this view of time.)
2b) Weak Theological Determinism (a.k.a. Divine Foreknowledge)
- Definition:
- Weak theological determinism is the idea that the future is known by an omniscient
God, so that future events will in fact inevitably occur in just the way God already
knows they will occur.
- Discussion:
- Theists who hold to weak theological determinism may also hold to spatio-temporal
determinism as the means by which a God outside of time can “foresee” and thus
foreknow what will happen in the future, so these two subcategories of logical determinism
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Or these theists may deny spatio-temporal determinism
and hold instead that an omniscient God can still know the future even though that future and
its causes do not yet exist (though many would argue that this is not a coherent theory,
since it seems to postulate empirical facts with no truth-makers). Either way, the main idea
is that even though human choices are held to be ultimately uncaused until they are made
(by a “power of agency” generally attributed to a nonphysical Cartesian mind or
soul), there is nevertheless a fact of the matter, known to God, about what someone will
choose even before that person chooses or even exists.
Root Category: Free Will
- Definition:
- Free will is the ability to choose between various courses of action voluntarily,
without being under any compulsion to choose one course of action over another.
- Discussion:
- This definition does not specify what would or would not count as a form of compulsion.
It therefore includes a variety of concepts that can all be classified under the category
of free will.
- Subcategories:
1) Compatibilistic Freedom
- Definition:
- Compatibilistic freedom is the ability to choose between various courses of action
in a way that is compatible with both logical and causal determinism. More specifically,
compatibilistic freedom is usually taken to mean the ability to choose in accordance with
one’s desires, so that by definition it involves no compulsion to choose a course of
action that is not desired.
- Discussion:
- Compatibilistic freedom does not mean that a person is always fully conscious of the
desires that control the process of choosing. Sometimes the process may feel more like
a subjugation of desire in order to choose what is wise or right, for example. But if
a person genuinely chooses to perform some action, rather than being physically
compelled to perform that action (being physically pushed by someone else, for example),
then the choice itself means that the person must have had something that can be called
a desire to make that particular choice—a desire that subconsciously, at least,
outweighed any contrary desire to choose differently at the time the choice was made.
2) Libertarian Freedom (a.k.a. Libertarian Free Will)
- Definition:
- Libertarian freedom is the ability to choose between various courses of action
without the choice being inevitably necessitated (i.e., by determinism).
- Discussion:
- Since there are two general subcategories of determinism, this definition similarly
calls for two subcategories of libertarian freedom in order to avoid ambiguity, although
these two subcategories are not often clearly defined or specified by many writers,
unfortunately. This is not too surprising, given that many do not consider logical
determinism to be a true species of determinism, as already noted. Nevertheless, it is
often difficult to know which kind of libertarian freedom many writers are really
referring to when they use this term.
- Subcategories:
2a) Weak Libertarian Freedom (nonstandard terminology)
- Definition:
- Weak libertarian freedom is the ability to choose between various courses of action
without the choice being necessitated by causal determinism, even if the choice may be
necessitated by logical determinism.
- Discussion:
- Weak libertarian freedom implies the ability to make choices that are uncaused until
the time they are made (at which time they are generally held to be caused by a nonphysical
“power of agency” belonging to the person). These choices are still logically
necessitated, however, by there being an empirical fact of the matter (which an omniscient
God would know, for example) as to how they will be made.
2b) Strong Libertarian Freedom (nonstandard terminology)
- Definition:
- Strong libertarian freedom is the ability to choose between various courses of action
without the choice being necessitated in any way, either by causal or logical determinism.
- Discussion:
- Strong libertarian freedom implies the ability to make choices that are in principle
unknowable (even by an omniscient God) until they are made. There is simply no fact of the
matter to be known as to how they will be made.
Theories About Determinism and Free Will
Root Category: Compatibilism (a.k.a. Soft Determinism)
- Definition:
- Compatibilism is the theory that compatibilistic freedom is the only kind of free
will needed in order for people to be morally accountable for their choices. In other
words, it is the theory that human choices can be meaningfully free (in the sense required
for people to be praiseworthy for their good choices and blameworthy for their bad choices)
even if causal determinism is true.
- Discussion:
-
Compatibilists do not necessarily hold that causal determinism is strictly true.
Most would probably accept the idea that physical determinism, at least, seems unlikely,
given the most natural interpretations of quantum mechanics. But compatibilists generally
hold that the decision-making process of human beings is nevertheless largely deterministic
in nature, much like a computer. They do not see quantum randomness or any other kind of
indeterminism as playing a morally significant role in this process. In fact, they usually
hold that compatibilistic freedom is the most morally meaningful kind of free will there
could possibly be, because only in compatibilistic freedom are our choices fully determined
by our desires, making us fully responsible for them. (In the compatibilist view, it is
hard to see how a choice made on any other basis besides what a person truly desires could
be morally meaningful at all.)
The question of whether a compatibilist believes in free will or not is ambiguous in
contexts where the term free will is not clearly defined, because compatibilists
believe in compatibilistic freedom but generally not in any kind of libertarian freedom.
Although the term soft determinism is in fairly common usage, I consider it somewhat
confusing because it is not really a variety of determinism per se, but rather the
theory that determinism does not contradict moral accountability. Both hard determinists
and soft determinists may believe in exactly the same kind of determinism.
In Christian theology, compatibilism is usually associated with the doctrine of Calvinism.
Root Category: Incompatibilism
- Definition:
- Incompatibilism is the theory that libertarian freedom is needed in order for people
to be morally accountable for their choices. In other words, human choices cannot be
meaningfully free (in the sense required for people to be praiseworthy for their good
choices and blameworthy for their bad choices) under the assumption of causal determinism.
- Discussion:
- Some would insist that an incompatibilist must hold that human choices cannot be
meaningfully free even under the assumption of logical determinism, not just under the
assumption of causal determination. This distinction will be dealt with only within the
subcategory of libertarianism, since it is not really important within the subcategory of
hard determinism.
- Subcategories:
1) Hard Determinism
- Definition:
- Hard determinism is the theory that human choices are not meaningfully free (in the
sense required for people to be praiseworthy for their good choices and blameworthy for
their bad choices), because compatibilistic freedom is held to be insufficient for people
to be morally accountable for their choices, but causal determinism is held to be true
(at least in every aspect relevant to the human decision-making process).
- Discussion:
- Hard determinists consider moral accountability in the sense referred to above to be
an illusion. This does not mean they are necessarily opposed to the concepts of praise and
blame, or reward and punishment. It just means that praise and blame, or rewards and
punishments, are never truly deserved in their view, though they might well still
serve useful purposes, such as helping to deter future bad behavior and encourage future
good behavior.
Although the term hard determinism is in fairly common usage, I consider it somewhat
confusing because it is not really a variety of determinism per se, but rather the
theory that determinism is true and contradicts moral accountability. As already noted,
both hard determinists and soft determinists may believe in exactly the same kind of
determinism.
In Christian theology, hard determinism is usually associated with the doctrine of
hyper-Calvinism. (Although the line between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism is not so clearly
defined, and some people might sometimes be considered hyper-Calvinists even if they
don’t deny moral accountability like hard determinists do.)
2) Libertarianism
- Definition:
- Libertarianism is the theory that libertarian freedom is needed in order for people to
be morally accountable for their choices, and that people do in fact have libertarian
freedom, because causal determinism is held to be false.
- Discussion:
- The dispute among libertarians over whether or not logical determinism counts as a
species of determinism that must also be false in order for people to be morally
accountable makes the term libertarianism rather ambiguous and therefore leads to
the following subcategories, which are not often clearly distinguished, unfortunately.
- Subcategories:
2a) Weak Libertarianism (nonstandard terminology)
- Definition:
- Weak libertarianism is the theory that weak libertarian freedom (but not strong
libertarian freedom) is needed in order for people to be morally accountable for their
choices, and that people do in fact have weak libertarian freedom, because causal
determinism is held to be false (even though logical determinism may be true).
- Discussion:
- For weak libertarians, the important thing about free will is that our choices must
not be causally determined before we make them. The possibility that they may be logically
determined is not a problem in this theory.
In Christian theology, weak libertarianism is associated with the doctrine of Arminianism
and with the doctrine of Molinism. (Molinism is also built on the concept of middle
knowledge, which adds to the concept of weak theological determinism by postulating
that not only is there a fact of the matter known to God about what a person will
choose in the future, but also there is a fact of the matter known to God about what a
person would choose in the future—still without being necessitated by causal
determinism—if circumstances were to turn out differently from how they actually
will turn out.)
2b) Strong Libertarianism (nonstandard terminology)
- Definition:
- Strong libertarianism is the theory that strong libertarian freedom is needed in order
for people to be morally accountable for their choices, and that people do in fact have
strong libertarian freedom, because causal and logical determinism are both held to be
false.
- Discussion:
- For strong libertarians, the important thing about free will is that our choices must
not be determined or necessitated in any way before we make them. There cannot be a fact
of the matter about what a person will choose in the future, because if there were such a
fact (knowable by an omniscient God, for example), then it would necessarily follow that
the person will inevitably make that particular choice.
In Christian theology, strong libertarianism is associated with the doctrine of open
theism.
This page copyright © 2016 Edward A. Morris.
Created January 21, 2016.
Last updated January 24, 2016.
Back to noble-minded.org home page