free will

← Encyclopedia

Free will is the capacity to choose between courses of action in a way that is genuinely one’s own — neither forced from outside nor settled in advance — and so to be the real author, and the fair bearer of praise or blame, of what one does. Stated that plainly it sounds like common sense. Almost every part of it has been contested for two thousand years.

The problem is not the experience of choosing, which few have doubted, but whether that experience answers to anything. If the gods know the future, the future is already fixed; if every event has a prior cause, the choice was caused too; if a sovereign God awards salvation, the saved did not earn it. Each of these threats arrives from a different direction — foreknowledge, causation, grace — and the history of the idea is largely the history of trying to keep human responsibility intact against one or another of them.

The Greeks framed the terms. Aristotle had treated action that is “up to us” as the basis of responsibility without naming a faculty of will; the question sharpened when the Stoics argued that everything happens by an unbroken chain of fate, and then insisted, against the obvious objection, that some things remain genuinely up to the agent. Scholarship credits this debate — not any single later author — with first posing the problem in a form still recognizable. The Neoplatonists pressed further toward an inward freedom: Plotinus asked in what sense even the highest principle could be called free, and located true liberty not in arbitrary choice but in the soul’s unforced turn toward the Good.

In the monotheist traditions the stakes became salvation itself. Christian thought carried a tension it never fully resolved: Paul wrote of a will divided against itself and of grace that does the saving, and Augustine, reading him, concluded that fallen humanity cannot will the good unaided — a position whose implications for predestination the Reformation would push to their limit, and which Catholic and Arminian theologians spent centuries qualifying. Islamic theology held the same fault line, between the Muʿtazila, who made the human being the creator of his own acts to preserve divine justice, and the determinist reading that subordinated every act to God’s decree; the dominant Ashʿarī settlement tried to hold both at once. Jewish tradition tended to assert the freedom to choose and the divine foreknowledge side by side, treating the contradiction as real but not disabling.

What recurs across all of it is a refusal to give up either pole. Thinkers who were certain the world was governed — by fate, by causes, by God — were generally just as certain that people are answerable for what they do, and spent their effort not on choosing between the two but on showing how both could be true together. Whether the reconciliations work remains open; the conviction that something is owed to both has proven harder to abandon than any particular solution to it.

→ In the library: Plotinus — Enneads VI.8: On Free-Will and the Will of the One (MacKenna) · Epictetus — The Discourses and Manual (Matheson, 1916)

→ Related: Soul · Knowledge · Sin · Neoplatonism · Christianity · Islam