Q2 “Critically assess the view that free will and determinism are compatible”. G582 OCR Jan 2012

Below you will find the content guidelines for this question, and the examiners’ comments after the paper was sat. Because the examiner’s comments are rather general, I have added my own interpretation in the form of a blue coloured note. Teachers, please add any additonal comments on disqus below. PB

AO1 Analytical criteria

Candidates could discuss what is meant by hard determinism, moral freedom and libertarianism and whether humans are ever free to make moral decisions. Note: these terms need careful definition: each implies a view of causation and a view of freedom which are not identical. For example, David Hume, a classical compatibilist, takes a weak view of freedom as “absence of constraint” – Locke’s man who is voluntarily in a locked room, if you like, is arguably not tied down and so believes himself free – and a view of cusation as “constant conjunction” or two things regularly happening together.

They may consider the views such as those of Darrow: we are the products of our upbringing and environment and so free will and determinism are not compatible; Honderich: as everything is physically determined there is no choice and so no free will; and Hospers: there is always something that compels us. Note: the hard determinists like Honderich or Sam Harris are materialists who take the view that every action and motive can be reducible to brainwaves. Libertarians tend to argue for a metaphysical will which cannot be precisely reducible to brainwaves.

Some candidates might consider theological determinism, Calvin and predestination and religious teachings on free will. They may discuss other religious teachings on free will such as those of Aquinas. Note: there has never been a question on theological determinism specifically, even though it’s in the syllabus.

They could compare these with compatibilism , which requires some things to be determined but still leaves people free to make ethical decisions. Note: this is a very poor statement of what compatibilists argue. If you follow through Hume’s argument as discussed in my book Free Will and Determinism, his thesis is that free will requires determinism otherwise it collapses into randomness. Very few textbooks explain this properly and this examiner’s comment also does nothing to enhance our understanding. Hume’s argument is that everything including the will must be determined and it’s crucial we understand Hume’s argument properly!

Responses may include the role of conscience in making moral decisions, whether free will is an illusion or whether psychological, genetic or social factors limit our freedom to make moral decisions.

They may also discuss biological and psychological determinism, explaining that we are either the product of our genes or our social conditioning.

Some candidates may consider that our sense of responsibility for our actions is merely an illusion and that we do not really make free choices.

Other candidates may consider the role of conscience in ethical decision making, and whether it is totally free, subject to outside influences, or just seems to be free. Note: given that this is clearly a question about compatibilism rather than the question from another paper “free will is an illusion” Discuss, I think these last few comments aren’t specially relevant and if the candidate followed this advice, it’s likely they would never get to the heart of the issue – what exactly is compatibilism and what view of freedom and causation does it take?

AO2 Evaluative criteria (which need to be woven in to AO1 points, unlike at AS level)

Candidates may consider the fact that we see ourselves as having free will, but that does not mean that our decisions are made independent of deterministic factors – our environment, memory, impulses etc. They may discuss whether these factors determine the ethical decisions we make or simply influence them.

Candidates could consider the implications for ethics if we are not free. They could consider the implications of the above statement in terms of human accountability and responsibility: our criminal justice system implies free will and if we do not have it then our ideas of reward and punishment are useless as our actions are simply inevitable.

They might consider whether we are free or just feel free and the idea that freedom is just apparent – we may feel free but we are not (Locke). They may consider whether anyone can be totally free and whether we are always constrained by laws, conscience and the fear of punishment.

Examiner’s comments on student answers

This was the most popular question, and was generally well answered with the majority of candidates constructing some interesting responses.

Some candidates displayed a comprehensive understanding and familiarity with the terms compatibilism and incompatibilism with regard to the free will and determinism debate.

Many responses were able to keep the focus on whether the two are compatible. Weaker answers simply listed everything they knew on the different approaches to determinism and libertarianism and then attempted to answer the question in the last paragraph.

As previously, there was less secure knowledge on libertarianism beyond a simple reference to Sartre. Better responses also used Mill and Campbell to support libertarianism. Note: modern libertarians include Peter Van Inwagen and Robert Kane.

Much use was made of Hume and his various ideas in the field of compatibilism itself, and candidates were able to make a good case based on his concepts. Note: think through my comment on Hume above which didn’t fill me with confidence that this question was well marked.

Locke’s analogy of the locked room provided some candidates with good discussion material given the range of possible interpretations. Others, however, were unsure as to how the analogy might apply to the discussion. Note: the Truman Show film is an excellent reworking of the locked room analogy and also, when we think about it, shows how the analogy can be used in different ways. But how did Locke want us to use it? What is Locke’s point? Was Locke a compatibilist, a libertarian or a hard determinist?

Kant appeared as both a compatibilist, due to the concept of noumenally free and phenomenally determined, and a libertarian due to the expression of autonomy within his ethical theory which was supported with a quote where Kant rejects compatibilism. Credit was given for either approach where it was used to answer the question. Note: most modern scholars take Kant as a compatibilist, but the truth is, Kant didn’t set up his philosophy around this issue, and simply assumes sutonomy of the will as one of his postulates (tiogetehr with immortality and the existence of God). Some would say all three are highly questionable assumptions.