Are our actions genuinely free, or are they determined, and what does the answer mean for moral responsibility?
Free Will and Determinism: hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism, the bearing on moral responsibility, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Free Will and Determinism, covering hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism, what each says about moral responsibility, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills to evaluate them.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Free Will and Determinism is a topic in the Religious and Philosophical Questions area, examined in Question Paper 2. It asks whether our actions are genuinely free or determined by prior causes, and what the answer means for moral responsibility. The SQA wants you to explain the three main positions (hard determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism), draw out their bearing on responsibility, and evaluate the question with a judgement.
The question and the three positions
- Hard determinism. Determinism is true and incompatible with free will: since every choice is caused, free will is an illusion, and strictly no one is morally responsible for what they could not have done otherwise.
- Libertarianism. Humans have genuine free will; our choices are not fully determined, and in a given situation we could have acted otherwise. So we are morally responsible.
- Compatibilism (soft determinism). Determinism is true, but freedom and determinism are compatible: an act is free when it flows from the person's own desires without external compulsion, even if those desires were caused. So we can still be responsible.
Moral responsibility
- If hard determinism is right, our ordinary practices of praise and blame look unjustified, since people could not have done otherwise; this bears directly on punishment (see Religion and Justice).
- Libertarianism straightforwardly supports responsibility: we are accountable because we genuinely choose.
- Compatibilism preserves everyday responsibility by redefining freedom as acting on one's own desires rather than being uncaused, so we are responsible for actions that are truly ours even in a caused world.
Evidence and arguments
The marks come from the reasons for each position.
- For determinism: the success of science in finding causes, and evidence from genetics, upbringing and neuroscience suggesting our choices have prior causes we do not control.
- For free will: the strong experience of choosing, the apparent reality of deliberation, and the practical necessity of treating people as responsible agents.
- For compatibilism: that it takes causation seriously while preserving the distinction we already draw between free acts (chosen) and compelled acts (forced), which is the distinction our moral and legal practice relies on.
Religious and non-religious responses
- Religious responses. Many traditions affirm that humans are free and accountable to God, which underpins moral teaching, reward and judgement; but ideas such as predestination or God's foreknowledge raise the question of how human freedom fits with divine sovereignty.
- Non-religious responses. Range across all three positions: some thinkers are hard determinists, many are compatibilists, and some defend libertarian free will, arguing from experience or from the limits of physical explanation.
- A strong evaluation weighs the positions and reaches a judgement, for example that compatibilism best preserves everyday responsibility while respecting the role of causes.
Try this
Q1. What does hard determinism say about free will and responsibility? [2 marks]
- Cue. Every choice is fully caused, so free will is an illusion and no one is truly morally responsible.
Q2. How does compatibilism define a free act? [2 marks]
- Cue. An act that flows from the person's own desires without external compulsion, even if those desires were themselves caused.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA Higher specimen8 marksExplain the difference between hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism.Show worked answer →
An 8-mark "explain" question rewards a developed, accurate account of the three positions.
Hard determinism: every event, including every human choice, is fully caused by prior causes, so free will is an illusion and (on this view) no one is truly morally responsible. Libertarianism: humans have genuine free will, our choices are not fully determined, and we could have acted otherwise, so we are morally responsible. Compatibilism: determinism is true, but freedom and determinism are compatible, because an act is free when it flows from the person's own desires without external compulsion, even if those desires were caused; so we can be responsible. Explain each clearly and contrast their views on responsibility to reach the top band.
SQA Higher specimen10 marksTo what extent are human beings morally responsible for their actions?Show worked answer →
A 10-mark evaluation needs argument and a judgement; responsibility is the issue.
Argue we are responsible: we experience making choices, hold each other to account, and libertarianism and compatibilism both leave room for responsibility. Then argue against: hard determinism and evidence from genetics, upbringing and neuroscience suggest our choices are caused, which can reduce or remove responsibility. Bring in religious views (many hold humans are free and accountable to God, though predestination complicates this) and non-religious ones. Reach a supported judgement, for example that compatibilism best preserves everyday responsibility while taking causation seriously.
Related dot points
- Origins: religious creation accounts, scientific accounts (the Big Bang and evolution), and the relationship between science and religion (conflict, independence and dialogue).
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Origins, covering religious creation accounts, scientific accounts of the universe and life (the Big Bang and evolution), and the ways science and religion are related, from conflict to compatibility.
- The Existence of God: the cosmological, teleological (design) and ontological arguments, the case from religious experience, and challenges from atheism and the problem of evil.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the Existence of God, covering the cosmological, design and ontological arguments and the argument from religious experience, the main objections, and the challenge from atheism, with the skills to evaluate them.
- Miracles: definitions of a miracle, the religious significance of miracles, Hume's argument against believing in miracles, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Miracles, covering definitions of a miracle, their religious significance, Hume's argument against believing miracle reports, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills to evaluate them.
- The Problem of Evil and Suffering: the logical and evidential problems, the distinction between moral and natural evil, theodicies (free will, soul-making), and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the Problem of Evil and Suffering, covering the logical and evidential problems, moral and natural evil, the free will and soul-making theodicies, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills to evaluate them.
- Religion and Justice: the nature and causes of crime, the aims of punishment (retribution, deterrence, protection, reformation, reparation), capital punishment, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion and Justice (crime and punishment), covering the causes of crime, the five aims of punishment, the death penalty debate, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond to questions of justice.