FIRST
Premise 1: If God creates human beings with free will as part of their nature, then the consequences of human choices—including moral and social outcomes—are ultimately traceable to God’s design.
Premise 2: Human free will, as exercised in our world, often leads to wrongdoing, which in turn frequently provokes hatred from others toward wrongdoers.
Premise 3: A perfectly good and omnipotent God would not design a system that predictably causes unjustified hatred, because such hatred is morally harmful and socially destructive.
Conclusion: Therefore, if free will originates from God and leads predictably to widespread hatred of wrongdoers, an inconsistency arises between the consequences of human free will and the notion of a perfectly good and omnipotent God.
THE ARGUMENT
We may or may not possess free will—the ability to make choices independently of prior causes. It is also possible that we are complex systems, influenced by genetics, environment, and psychology, yet experience the illusion of freedom. There is currently no empirical evidence confirming the existence of libertarian free will, which would allow us to act entirely independently of prior causes.
Libertarian Free Will
Libertarian free will is the notion that we can act contrary to all deterministic forces. For example, an alcoholic suddenly overcoming an addiction might appear to override powerful inclinations. Proponents of libertarian free will claim that such acts are ultimately uncaused, arising solely from the individual. Many who identify as believers in free will may not explicitly endorse this strict definition, often favoring a compatibilist perspective that allows moral responsibility without full metaphysical freedom. Nevertheless, some influential thinkers, such as Richard Swinburne, suggest that a significant portion of free will proponents implicitly accept libertarian assumptions.
The Limits of Free Will
Philosophers have long acknowledged that defining or demonstrating free will is challenging. Even if determinism were false, the question remains whether our actions are genuinely free or whether apparent freedom arises from indeterministic processes beyond our control. Determinism explains behavior as the result of prior causes, while pure indeterminism does not provide a satisfactory account for intentional action. In either case, libertarian free will remains unproven.
If there is no compelling evidence for free will, the question arises: is it ethical to promote this doctrine as fact? Advocating belief in free will without clear justification risks fostering misconceptions about moral responsibility and human behavior.
Moral Implications of Belief in Free Will
Belief in free will can influence social attitudes, including judgment and blame. People may perceive others as morally responsible in ways that overestimate individual autonomy. Denying libertarian free will does not imply that one cannot evaluate actions or encourage ethical behavior; it merely frames responsibility in terms of causality, context, and consequences rather than absolute metaphysical freedom.
A compatibilist perspective can maintain ethical guidance and social norms without requiring the assumption that people are wholly free in the libertarian sense. Recognizing the limits of our autonomy may reduce excessive moral condemnation and promote empathy, acknowledging that human behavior is shaped by many factors beyond individual control.
Reconsidering Punishment and Retribution
If human actions are largely determined, traditional concepts of retributive punishment become less straightforward. Holding individuals morally accountable in the libertarian sense may justify harsh consequences that are ethically problematic. Alternatively, we can base legal and social interventions on outcomes—rehabilitation, prevention, and protection—without invoking the necessity of free will. This approach emphasizes reducing harm rather than exacting vengeance.
Love, Hate, and Human Motivation
Much of human behavior can be understood through basic emotions, such as love and fear. When people act destructively, they often do so to relieve fear or protect themselves, rather than from a purely evil desire. Believing in free will as a justification for moral superiority or hatred can misdirect ethical reasoning. Denying libertarian free will does not eliminate moral judgment; it encourages understanding of the causal factors behind actions and the cultivation of compassion, even toward those who act harmfully.
Theological Implications
Religious doctrines often invoke free will to explain moral responsibility or divine judgment. If human autonomy is limited, theological claims about eternal punishment or ultimate justice warrant reevaluation. Ethical reflection should prioritize human well-being and fairness rather than adherence to unverified metaphysical assumptions.
Conclusion
Free will, particularly in its libertarian form, remains unproven and conceptually problematic. Belief in it can shape attitudes toward punishment, morality, and social interactions, sometimes in harmful ways. A more coherent framework acknowledges human behavior as the product of multiple causal factors while preserving ethical responsibility and social cohesion. Emphasizing understanding, rehabilitation, and compassion, rather than metaphysical freedom, provides a defensible and humane approach to ethics and society.
APPENDIX:
Before you can accuse anybody of making an immoral decision freely, you need to send them back in time a few times to see if they will keep deciding the same thing. Once is not enough in case it is just coincidence. And the worse the thing the person has done the worse it is to accuse them of doing it freely without proof.