An Investigation of the Notion of the Free Will

The idea of a free will is once again popular in modern times. With the advent of existentialist thought, many humans once again tend to view themselves as being creators of their own destiny.

Immanuel Kant was also fond of the notion of a free will, while others such as Hume were highly suspect. Thinkers like Hume believed that every thought in an individuals mind is simply the result of previous experience. In this way we are said to not be free to make choices in the conventional sense, rather it is proposed that we have been conditioned to respond to any given situation by reason of our past experiences.

Today I wish to put forward Kant's notion of the free will, while on another day I will attempt to better elucidate the opposing views regarding the human will.

Kant’s notion of a kingdom of ends in which rational beings at once legislate principles and subject themselves to those principles grows out of Kant’s notion of an autonomous rational free will and the idea of pre-existing moral principles. Kant believed that it is only through the autonomy of the will that rational beings as opposed to natural beings are ends in themselves with dignity and entitled to respect. This conception of the kingdom of ends grows out of Kant’s claim that natural beings which are affected only by their inclinations are not capable of acting in a moral manner, and that autonomy of the will is required for there to even be such a thing as genuine morality. Kant reconciles the fact that all natural events have prior, natural and determining causes with the possibility of morality by suggesting the existence of a free cause which exists outside of but acts upon nature; the rational free will.

Kant’s notion of a kingdom of ends is posed as a community in which, “every rational being should treat himself and all others never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end in himself.” Because Kant suggested that one is autonomous or free only if one is the author of the laws to which one is subject, he believed that as rational beings all of our wills are identical in terms of the universally applicable moral law, and in this manner any universal law one may lay down and impose upon others will automatically be accepted so far as we are all rational beings. Here Kant is proposing a convergence of wills, each member of the kingdom of ends is both legislator and subject to the universal moral laws we create. Since laws determine the ends as regards their universal validity, if one abstracts away from the personal differences of rational beings and also from all content of their private ends, then it will be possible to think of a whole of ends in systematic connection. This springs from Kant’s idea that one should treat rational beings never as a means but only as an end in itself. This belief Kant states when he writes that, “man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will.”

An example of what Kant means here is the idea of a promise. The reason why we must respect a promise from Kant’s notion is not because we may face negative consequences; rather it is because we must respect other people as ends in themselves out of our respect for duty to moral law. By this logic the kingdom of ends is one in which all rational beings respect each other as ends in themselves. This is due to rational beings possessing a free will and because of this feature, such beings are entitled to respect and dignity.

As already stated, Kant saw rational beings as being ends in themselves with dignity and entitled to respect. This is evident in his notion of natural beings as subject only to their inclinations while rational beings are subject to both natural inclinations as well as the free will. Kant believed that morality can not even exist without the application of reason; this is clear when he states the following:

"And how could laws for the determination of our will be regarded as laws for the determination of a rational being in general and of ourselves only insofar as we are rational beings, if these laws were merely empirical and did not have their source completely a priori in pure, but practical, reason?"

Because of the need for reason in order for one to be moral, Kant says that, “morality and humanity, insofar as it is capable of morality, alone have dignity.” Kant believed that other means such as skill and diligence in work have a market value, and characteristics such as wit, lively imagination, and humour have an affective price; but fidelity to promises and benevolence based on principles, i.e. moral behaviour, have intrinsic worth. Skills and other attributes here are presented merely as means to other ends, moral behaviours being ends in themselves.

Kant’s notion of morality being conditional upon the existence of the rational free will, and that only rational beings are able to act in a moral manner, leads to the proposition of free causes which exist outside of nature but which affect nature. Natural events all have natural, prior determining causes. This can be witnessed when one kicks a soccer ball and the ball moves in accord to the amount of force used. Kant suggests the notion of free causes in order to explain the possibility of morality as an a priori principle, the rational will which acts freely. Kant writes that, “the will is a kind of causality belonging to living beings insofar as they are rational; freedom would be the property of this causality that makes it effective independent of any determination by alien causes.” The existence of the free will is something which can not be proved Kant believes, however it is necessary if one is to suggest the existence of a priori moral principles. Kant believes that the free will exists somehow outside of nature but acts upon nature. This somewhat supernatural nature of the free will Kant expresses when he writes that the free will, “must, rather, be a causality in accordance with immutable laws, which, to be sure, is of a special kind; otherwise a free will would be something absurd.” In order for the idea of pre-existing moral principles to make any sense, Kant believes that the rational free will is a necessity, although its existence can never be proven.

Kant’s notion of a kingdom of ends in which all rational beings treat each other not as means but as ends in themselves grows out of Kant’s notion of an autonomous rational free will and the principle of the pre-existing moral principles. Due to Kant’s belief that reason is a necessity for moral acts to occur, he believes that only rational beings as opposed to natural beings are ends in themselves with dignity and entitled to respect. This idea grows out of Kant’s notion of rational beings possessing a free will and that this will exists outside of nature but has an affect upon nature.

The main question which should jump out at any reader would be the notion of a free cause as existing outside of nature. This is perhaps Kant's greatest flaw and yet in modernity it is generally accepted by the average public that such free wills exist. In fact, for most individuals the very idea that we lack a free will seems even more absurd than the idea of a supernatural free causing will which exists separate from that which it acts upon. If we were to see a soccer ball suddenly move seemingly by itself, i.e. by a free cause rather than a foot kicking the ball, we would be completely stunned by such an action. And yet for most this is exactly what we accept as occurring when we go about our daily lives interacting with reality. Most individuals believe they are acting freely and making choices in their daily lives, but when one contemplates the philosophical problems inherant with such a belief the matter no longer seems as clear cut a proposition as it previously did.