Free Will is defined as the power/capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independent of natural/social/divine restraints. It is a largely contested notion as many believe that Free Will does not exist – many philosophers argue that it does not exist because our life is Determined. These Philosophers are known as Hard Determinists.
Hard Determinists state that Free will doesn't exist, it is simply an illusion. Hard Determinism is the belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur. The future is causally determined by the past. True freedom requires control over the future but as our future is determined by the past, Determinist thinking nullifies the concept of free will. It believes that there is a causal relationship between events in the past and the events in our future so the future is firmly fixed by the past. We are simply living in a chain of events that we have no influence over. All of our actions are caused by the past so we have no power to act other than we do indeed act (we are unable to perform Free Acts [Free Acts: actions that are deemed free as one was not constrained when performing it and one had the option to act otherwise]) and, therefore, we have no free will. To explain Determinism, I will introduce two examples:
(1) The House Example: imagine that you are sleeping over at a friend's house and you hear some weird creaking in the middle of the night. You ask him what the noise is but he says that the noise just happens every night and there's no cause for it... would you accept this answer? Nearly everyone who answered this question stated that they would never accept this answer as there has to be a cause for the noise. This indicates the belief that all events have a cause, they are not randomly generated.
(2) The Domino Analogy: there are a set of dominos lined up in a row. Once the first domino at T1 falls, the nth domino has to fall at Tn. This is because the fall of the previous domino causes the fall of the next, there is a causal relationship between the previous and next domino. Our life is like the domino set: the cause of the event happens before the event and once the cause occurs, it triggers the event.
John Hospers’ theory on the question of Free Will further explores this determinist view as he believes that our actions are simply just a result of our character (our character is defined as a coalition of our early upbringing and our genetics) so our past determines our future. There is a causal relationship between events in the past and the events in our future so the future is firmly fixed by the past. We are simply living in a chain of events that we have no influence over. Because we are not free nor do we have free will, we are not held morally responsible for our actions as it is impossible to change who we are (the driving force for our actions) because our character is comprised of fixed elements: our upbringing and genetics. But, as a society cannot function on the basis that there is no responsibility because one can never be morally responsible for their actions, Hospers has found a loophole declaring that if someone’s actions pose a threat to society, they are held legally responsible for their actions and the justice system acts upon the individual. This idea of moral responsibility versus legal responsibility is highlighted in the following example: if a criminal kills someone, they are not morally responsible for their actions as their act was predetermined by events in the past. Their character is a product of their upbringing and this caused their actions in the future: they had no control over what they were doing. However, they would be held legally responsible for their actions as they committed actions threatening the safety of society.
Although one may impulsively subscribe to this theory because sometimes we can feel that we have no control over life, we can never really fully support this theory due to its incompatibility with human life. Although Hospers found a way to circumvent the issue of the lack of responsibility by introducing legal responsibility, this theory still has two large flaws. Firstly, Hospers' notion of lacking moral responsibility is incompatible with the basic structures of society: we are social beings and we feel guilt/other emotions as repercussions of our actions. Any person who has basic levels of empathy would not fit Hospers’ theory of determinism as they would feel remorse for an action that negatively impacted something and they would feel joy when something positive occurs as an outcome of their action. Unfortunately for determinists, people who have basic levels of empathy account for nearly 98% of the World’s population so this completely contradicts Hospers’ theory on determinism as we do feel morally accountable for our actions. Secondly, if we cannot change ourselves and our future, this negates the entire concept of life as there has to be a meaning for our existence. The journey of life comprises of us changing due to external stimuli and learning, adapting and growing so Hospers’ theory contradicts the essence of the journey of life because it dictates that we cannot change. In addition to this, the notion of us not being able to change also negates the entire basis of the legal system as the system is put in place to rehabilitate people but if people cannot change their actions, this renders the legal system ineffective in pursuing justice for society. How can we teach someone what they did was morally wrong if they cannot change their character and their ways? How can we even instil ethical norms into society if people have no control over their actions and they are not responsible for what they do? To summarise the weaknesses of Hospers’ theory, it simply cannot fit human life as it renders the meaning of life, the moral compassion we have for one another and even the legal system obsolete.