Free choice according to many is largely an illusion. Not all like saying nature is fooling us. We don't have to think that. It is clear though that society and religion do delude us into thinking the case for free will is convincing. They do that by getting us to read too much into things and over-simplifying.
While we feel as if we make free decisions, our actions are shaped by biology, upbringing, and environmental influences. The belief in free will often rests on three main assumptions, all of which can be questioned.
The feeling of freedom does not prove free will. It only happens when no outside force takes control of us - there can be inner controls that do not feel like they compel while they do indeed compel.
Humans, like other animals, feel agency in their actions. Dogs, for instance, act instinctively but clearly experience satisfaction and happiness. Similarly, our sense of freedom may arise from complex internal processes, not from true independent choice. Recognizing this does not prevent us from making meaningful decisions—it simply reframes them as part of a chain of causes.
Reward and punishment do not require free will.
We often justify rewards or punishments by claiming that people freely chose their behavior. But rewards are primarily given to encourage positive actions and to express care or appreciation; punishments, when motivated by fear, can often do more harm than good. By accepting that behavior is determined by circumstances, we can respond to wrongdoing with guidance, support, and education rather than revenge or condemnation. This approach promotes growth, not fear.
The concept of
“should” is coercive. Telling someone they “should” do something implies
blame or moral failure if they do not comply. This language fosters guilt and
self-reproach. Instead, using the word “could” emphasizes possibility, autonomy,
and encouragement, fostering self-esteem and positive motivation. Free will,
framed as a moral obligation, often enforces control rather than liberation.
Belief in unfree will does not prevent moral growth. Even if our choices
are determined, people can learn, improve, and act ethically. Knowledge,
understanding, and encouragement drive change more effectively than the fear of
moral failure. Believing that actions arise from circumstance allows us to
respond with empathy and reason, not judgment and punishment.
Children and moral learning: We guide young children, reward good behavior, and correct mistakes—even though they do not have the cognitive capacity for full free will. This demonstrates that moral development is possible without assuming freedom in a metaphysical sense.
Insanity and free will: Insane individuals often believe they are making free choices, but their actions are determined by their condition. Free will cannot be proven or reliably observed, and assuming it is necessary risks unjust judgment.
Does free will deny human equality? The doctrine says we deliberately let evil into us to become a part of us and/or do evil acts. Person A is an evildoer. Person B is not. If hypothetically you could make the force of chance, which is going to kill one anyway kill A, would you? Yes you would. So the doctrine is denying that A matters as much as B. The doctrine has been formulated in the Constitution of the United States as affirming equality. The devaluation will make an impact. Lying about it only makes it worse.
Rejecting free will does not mean that right and wrong cease to exist. Instead, it allows us to value all humans equally, regardless of their mistakes, because bad behavior can be understood as the product of circumstance rather than inherent moral failure. By emphasizing self-love and rational encouragement, we create a society where goodness is attractive and supported, not enforced through guilt, fear, or divine command.
Summary:
Free will is based on a feeling but feelings are not truths - that our actions are determined by biology, upbringing, and environment is truth.
Punishment and moral guidance work best when based on support and understanding, not blame.
The language of “should” is coercive; the language of “could” fosters growth.
Moral development is possible without assuming free will.
Rejecting free will promotes equality, empathy, and the pursuit of happiness.