EnglandReligious StudiesSyllabus dot point

Are we genuinely free, as libertarianism claims, or does the truth lie with compatibilism, which holds that freedom and determinism can both be true?

Component 3 libertarianism and the compatibility of determinism and free will: Sartre's radical freedom, the libertarian case, and compatibilism (soft determinism), with the implications for moral responsibility and strengths and weaknesses.

An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to libertarianism and the compatibility of determinism and free will. Covers Sartre's radical freedom and bad faith, the libertarian case for genuine free choice, compatibilism (soft determinism), and the implications for moral responsibility, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Against determinism stand two positions on free will. Libertarianism holds that humans have genuine free will: at least some choices are not fully determined by prior causes, so we really could have done otherwise, and we are therefore fully morally responsible. Jean-Paul Sartre gives a radical existentialist version: "existence precedes essence", meaning humans have no fixed nature or essence given in advance; we are "condemned to be free" and create ourselves through our choices, and to deny this freedom by pretending our actions are forced (by our role, our nature or circumstances) is "bad faith", a self-deception. Compatibilism, also called soft determinism, holds that determinism and free will are compatible: an action is free when it flows from the agent's own desires without external compulsion (Hume), even though those desires are themselves caused. On this view, a person who acts willingly is free and responsible, while a person who is coerced or compelled is not, and the distinction that matters is between voluntary and forced action, not between caused and uncaused. The crucial implication is for moral responsibility: libertarianism and compatibilism both preserve it (in different senses), whereas hard determinism removes it. Compatibilism fits both the scientific picture of universal causation and our everyday practice of holding people responsible, but critics object that it offers only a thin freedom, since if our desires are caused we still could not ultimately have done otherwise. AO2 marks come from judging which account of free will is most convincing, and concluding.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
Examples in context
Try this

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas Component 3 (Theme 4, Determinism and Free Will) studies libertarianism and the compatibility of determinism and free will. You learn the libertarian case (we have genuine free will and could have done otherwise), Sartre's existentialist radical freedom and bad faith, and compatibilism (soft determinism) (freedom and determinism are both true), and the implications for moral responsibility. The exam rewards explaining the positions precisely (AO1) and evaluating which account of free will is most convincing (AO2).

The answer

Libertarianism

Sartre: radical freedom and bad faith

Compatibilism (soft determinism)

Implications and evaluation

For moral responsibility: libertarianism secures it through genuine free choice; compatibilism secures it through uncompelled desire; hard determinism removes it. Strengths of compatibilism: it fits both the scientific picture (universal causation) and our practice of holding people responsible, and avoids the implausibility of uncaused choices. Weaknesses: critics call it a "thin" or "wretched" freedom, since if the desires are caused the agent still could not have done otherwise, so the deeper libertarian worry survives. Strengths of libertarianism: it honours our sense of real choice and responsibility. Weaknesses: it must explain how a free choice is neither caused nor random, and it conflicts with the scientific picture.

Examples in context

Building an AO2 paragraph on whether compatibilism is a genuine solution

step 1 State the claim precisely

State, do not narrate: "Compatibilism holds that an action is free when it flows from the agent's own uncompelled desires, even though those desires are caused, so determinism and moral responsibility are compatible."

step 2 Put the strongest objection against it

Bring in the challenge: "Libertarians and hard determinists agree in objecting that this is only a thin freedom: if my desires are themselves fully caused by my genes and upbringing, then I still could not ultimately have desired or done otherwise, so calling the action 'free' relabels the problem rather than solving it."

step 3 Weigh the exchange

Judge it: "Compatibilism captures something real and important, the everyday difference between acting willingly and being forced, which our moral and legal practice clearly tracks; but the objection has force at the deeper level, because moral responsibility seems to require not just that I act on my desires but that I could have had different desires, which compatibilism cannot guarantee if those desires are caused."

step 4 Reach a justified conclusion

Close with a defended verdict: "Compatibilism is a partial solution: it convincingly explains the freedom that grounds everyday responsibility and reconciles it with causation, but it does not answer the deepest libertarian demand for ultimate authorship, so it is the most workable account of the freedom we actually need while leaving the metaphysical question of ultimate origination unresolved." A reasoned conclusion reaches the top band.

Try this

Q1. Explain Sartre's view that humans are "condemned to be free". [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

What the marker wants. Accurate account of "existence precedes essence", radical freedom and total responsibility, and bad faith as self-deception, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.

Q2. "Libertarianism gives a better account of moral responsibility than compatibilism." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]

Cue. Weigh libertarianism's fit with our sense of genuine choice against the problem of explaining uncaused choice, and compatibilism's workable freedom against the "thin freedom" objection, then judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Eduqas A120 2019 (style)20 marksExplain libertarianism and compatibilism as accounts of free will. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

Show worked answer →

A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain both positions accurately.

Libertarianism: humans have genuine free will; some choices are not determined by prior causes, so we really could have done otherwise, and we are fully morally responsible. Sartre's existentialism: "existence precedes essence", we have no fixed nature; we are "condemned to be free" and create ourselves through radical choices; to deny this freedom is "bad faith" (self-deception, pretending we have no choice). Compatibilism (soft determinism): determinism and free will are compatible; an action is free when it flows from the agent's own desires without external compulsion (Hume), even though those desires are caused. So a person who acts willingly is free and responsible, whereas one who is coerced is not. A top band answer explains Sartre's radical freedom and the compatibilist redefinition of freedom.

Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Compatibilism is the most convincing account of free will." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]

Show worked answer →

A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.

For compatibilism: it fits both the scientific picture (universal causation) and our practice of holding people responsible, by locating freedom in acting from one's own uncompelled desires; it avoids the implausibility of uncaused choices. Against: critics say it offers only a "thin" freedom, since if the desires themselves are caused we still could not have done otherwise (the deeper libertarian worry); libertarianism better fits our sense of genuine choice and moral responsibility, while hard determinism is more honest about causation. Weigh whether compatibilism's redefinition of freedom is a solution or an evasion, and conclude. Links to determinism.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this

Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism — Yale University Press (1946)