Do humans have free will?

Well, there is a belief that if you don't have something, you just don't want it hard enough
I would like a definition of "free will". If you mean if people can act according to their own consideration, we definitely do, but so do animals.

I was just throwing that out there about what Stephen King said. Yes, I'm familiar with Tesla and his water-based engine. Still can't figure that one out. I came up with a piston-style magnet motor once but, never tried to build a prototype. I do have an idea for a purely electric battery fuel source though.

Most discussions of free will center around the question of whether or not we can do other than what we do.

It could be the case that we feel like we have free will, and yet because this is a deterministic universe then despite the fact that we have that feeling of free will we can't actually do other than what we do. In this case free will would be merely an illusion.

Or it could be the case that we're living in a deterministic universe and we are actually free agents who do make real choices (we could make different choices) and are responsible for our actions.

Or it could be the case that our universe isn't strictly a deterministic universe. (but anything other than deterministic is not easy to imagine). But even then we still we must ask, "if not a deterministic universe, then how is it that we have free will?"

Yes, we make our own choices & decisions to which there are consequences good or bad

I am not sure what this has to do with free will.

Free will implies active thinking in a decision making process as opposed to a manipulative entity guiding all that we do. The very notion that we have the ability to choose our actions negates the argument that 'Free Will' does not exist. The usual next stage in the argument against it is the idea of 'fate' and 'destiny' which in my own opinion is extremely silly.

I open a door because I want to not because some being has a hand in making me do so. I have chosen to take an art class because I want to not because something has done so for me.

Yes, I think we do.

There are people who reject free will on the basis of science. The thinking is that because we are physical objects in a physical world, then determinism applies.


Imagine a steep hillside with a bunch of boulders. Now imagine that because of some physical process (erosion, shifting sand, wind) one of the boulders rolls down the hill. It's not some manipulative entity that makes that boulder roll down the hill. It's not fate or destiny that makes the boulder roll down the hill. It's not some hand making it move. It's determinism in the form of physical processes. In this example, humans are the boulders.


The people who reject free will on the basis of science acknowledge that they and everyone else feels like they're making free choices. But they also believe that because those choices are ultimately determined by purely physical processes, then humans no more have free will than do boulders rolling down a hill.


The people who believe we have no free will on the basis of their views of determinism acknowledge that we feel like we have free will, but label that feeling as an illusion. They believe that because all of our thoughts and feelings are determined by physical events we experience, and those events were determined by other events, events that be traced all the way back to the big bang... because of that long line of physical events, they believe that humans don't actually have free will, even though we all feel like we do.

No, I don’t believe that we have free will. I believe that we have a type of agency that is limited by structures, though. I cannot, by the force of will, override my social grouping, for instance.

Free will — and agency — are more than matters of philosophy or neuroscience and would require far too much rhetoric than can be afforded here to even achieve adequate definitions.

But if you mean to ask if humans have the ability to make choices, yes, we do. Free will does not mean that our choices are ethical or even in our best interest, though, nor does it mean that we bear any responsibility for the consequences of our choices.

Agency limited by structures, I suppose, is the extent of my beliefs.

Wait — if we have free will wouldn’t it follow that there’s no guiding hand? Your second sentence implies that there is >>something<< that has a causal affect upon us, something in existence that gives living a meaningful purpose.

If, in fact, we have a kind of — ??? — ‘guide,’ then we can’t have free will, can we?

I love Sam Harris.

I prefer “agency” rather than “free will” and support the idea that “structures” inform — and limit — agency. I tend to accept determinism, I guess. I agree with your final sentence. I do not believe that everyone is responsible for their actions and I think that arguments for responsibility can only make sense if all men operate with unfettered agency (which is clearly untenable).

Is it the action itself that informs responsibility? I don’t believe that to be the case.

i have observed society in general.

Many state they have free will. They are the rich, celebrities, and high status types.

Those of us, who are not in that level of class - basically do as we're told by our bosses, superiors, the rich, the celebrities and the high status types..

The have fail safes to make sure we "believe" we have free will. Those fail safes are teachers, doctors, lawyers, religion, religious leaders.

If WE step out of line? We are punished.. Let THEM step out of line? They usually get a slap on the wrist - if that.

Don't believe me?

Look at the people in the news.

As I’m within your ‘fail safe’ group, maybe I shouldn’t comment, but...

I believe that everyone has agency but I agree with the premise that it is an agency of more or less, that it’s limited and even more limited for some than others. Yes, one need only stay informed to see how the wealthy or those with ‘connections’ are treated differently than we peons.

There is hope, though.

The #MeToo movement has put celebrities, politicians, and other high profile folks on notice that harassment and abuse will not only no longer be tolerated but that one may lose one’s livelihood over lewd and abusive behavior spanning decades. It’s not a political movement but rather a moral movement and it’s really shaken the idea that those with money and power always win.

So, maybe the times are changing a little. I say that aware that there are still wealthy celebrities who seem to have an unlimited agency (one must have a conscience before agency, unlike free will) to do whatever they wish with no repercussions. I’d like to think that these people will, one day, get their comeuppance but I doubt it.

I think that agency hit a home run with #MeToo and we’re still seeing the affect, day after day. I naively believed, oh, back in the early 1970’s, that sexual harassment and abuse were dead. I usually think myself evil in every respect but I will applaud myself for never sexually abusing anyone. I did, once, in my early teens, harass a girl. For about 10 seconds and she laughed and ran away. I felt ill. Fifty years later, I still feel ill.

Morality is making strides, the limitations of agency are narrowing. I think that we need to recognize the victories.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that some people (at some times) are responsible for their actions? or that no persons are ever responsible for their actions?

I believe we have free will. I glad we do because in court all the people on trial for crimes can use not having free will to get away with their crimes.

Our justice system certainly assumes free will. Harris believes that we don't have free will, but also argues that we still need a justice system. I can't wrap my head around the idea. How could we tell someone, "You weren't responsible for your actions, because you don't have free will, but we are going to hold you accountable for what you did."

I think we both have and don't have free will. The capacity for it is there but society heavily influences how we perceive everything, our personalities, our likes and dislikes, the decisions we make. On top of that there's also the affect past experiences have on the mind, the triggers and knee jerk reactions to certain stimuli that life experiences trigger. People's perception of the world, of themselves, of others, of what they can and cannot do, of morality, is shaped by a lot of things like social status, looks, ethnicity, gender, culture, family, wealth. The rich, the stereotypically good looking, white men, straight people, generally all privileged groups, feel the world is more free and people nicer, they feel more powerful and more in control of their own lives and that is their truth because they are treated better and taken more seriously and given access to a lot more things, including lighter punishments for wrong doings, fewer consequences.


Personally, for ex, I consider myself pretty outside the box and not particularly influenced in my thinking by the culture I grew up in. However, that can never be 100% true and even if my beliefs may not be shaped by social conditioning, I've been influenced in other ways, especially emotionally. All that influences our decision making and our actions so it's not 100% free will because that, to me, implies not being influenced in ways you can't control(like for ex childhood experiences, social standing growing up, family environment, etc)

But there is some free will because although we are highly influenced and shaped by all the things I mentioned above, within the broad confines of that there's a myriad of possible choices in how you act and react. For ex, if you're white or living in a predominantly white culture, you're like racist to some degree because racism is in the fabric of every culture, even when it's "tame" or subtle. You don't get to choose whether or not you're exposed to those messages, it starts from early childhood and is often very subtle in today's western world, and you're going to internalize some of it because the brain looks for clues to identify and standardize everything. However, later on, most of us to have sufficient intellectual potential to choose how we treat others, if we stick to stereotypes or challenge and push back against those knee jerk reactions towards someone based on ethnicity, that we are conditioned to have. It's like, most if not all white people are racist to some degree but you can stop being racist by trying to make your own opinion, choosing not to go with that initial impulse to stereotype someone, make a conscious decision. That's free will to me, being aware you're, to some extent, conditioned to react in certain ways and make certain choices, then challenging that and making a decision to act a certain way based on more.

Or, I don't know, most of us can choose, at least to some extent, to either be kind or mean, to be fair or cheat to get ahead, to hurt someone or not or at least hurt them as little as possible.


Is there true free will for someone like, let's say, a major psychopath with murderous tendencies and a traumatising childhood or adolescence to boot? That's debatable in the sense that the urge may be so great and the act itself the only form of psychological release, that it is impossible to control. Does that mean they don't have accountability for their actions? No, because even if they can't control the urge, they are aware of it and it is a lucid, conscious act. There is some free will within the boundaries of your particular situation. If a poor, hungry person steals something(food, a wallet, etc), their circumstances might have forced them and that should be taken into account but there was still a degree of free will, a conscious choice to commit a felony. I think it's more about the motives, the situation, the circumstances and how those have influenced the individuals' free will.

Well, firstly, agency and free will are not the same. So...

Some people at some times are largely responsible for their actions.

Some people at some times are not responsible for their actions.

All other actions are somewhere in between the two.

I think you were saying that you believe we don't have free will. But, it also appears that you believe that some people at some times are responsible for their actions- because they have agency.


I'm operating under the assumption that if people don't have free will, then they are not responsible for their actions.


I believe that people do usually have free will, and that they are usually responsible for their actions (there are cases when people don't have free will and shouldn't be held responsible for their actions).