Some students have complained that I have left the job unfinished, and that I should continue the argument to a conclusion.  In other words, they want to know what students always want to know:  What is the answer?  Or at least, what do I think is the answer?  Although I would rather see students come up with their own answers, here is how I see the issue:

The argument of free will versus determinism is in some measure a false one.  Both sides have been reduced to straw men (easily destroyed arguments) by oversimplification.  For example, free will has never meant freedom to ignore the laws of nature, and determinism does not mean everything is predictable.  Perhaps the best thing we can do to get past the stalemate is to develop a new concept that points to the complexity of the person and his or her interaction with the world.  Instead of free will versus determinism, maybe we should adopt Albert Bandura's preferred term:  Self-determination.

As a middle-aged man, I have dozens of years of experiences -- my childhood, my cultural inheritance, the books I've read, conversations with friends, my own thoughts -- that have made me who I am today.  All this is on top of my unique genetics and other physical realities of who I am.  The things that happen to me now are  experienced through this mass of uniqueness, and my responses depend, not only on my present situation, but on all that I am.  This may not be "free will" in the absolute sense, but it is certainly self-determination.

If we possess this (somewhat limited) freedom, we also possess a (somewhat limited) responsibility for our actions.  For most adults, it can be legitimately claimed that who we are includes basic moral concepts and a rational respect for the law conveyed to us by our parents and others.  These things are a part of who we are, and are available to us when we make a choice to behave one way or another.  We are therefore culpable if we disregard these moral and legal concepts.  This dovetails nicely into the legal tradition that asks whether or not a person actually knows right from wrong, and whether the person has the maturity or the cognitive wherewithall to choose right over wrong.

In other words, we don't have to be "above" the natural world in order to have a degree of freedom within that world.

© Copyright 1999, 2005, C. George Boeree