Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism

Course No. 4235
Professor Shaun Nichols, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Share This Course
4.2 out of 5
52 Reviews
80% of reviewers would recommend this product
Course No. 4235
Audio Streaming Included Free

Course Overview

Do you make your own choices or have circumstances beyond your control already decided your destiny? For thousands of years, this very question has intrigued and perplexed philosophers, scientists, and everyone who thinks deliberately about how they choose to live and act. The answer to this age-old riddle is universally relevant to our lives. The implications of our views on it can affect everything from small choices we make every day to our perspective on criminal justice and capital punishment. From the Stoics to Boethius, from Kant to Hume, from Sartre to contemporary philosophers, great minds have puzzled over this debate for centuries.

Now you can learn the intriguing details of this fundamental philosophical question with Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism, 24 fascinating lectures by Shaun Nichols, award-winning Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at the University of Arizona.

What Is Free Will?

Professor Nichols begins his course with a discussion of the concept of free will. You discover the three kinds of questions that philosophers ask in their exploration of free will:

  • Descriptive questions: What is free will? What is required for us to be morally responsible?
  • Substantive questions: Do we have free will? Are we morally responsible?
  • Prescriptive questions: How do we change our actions in response to our knowledge of free will?

By explaining the fundamental approaches to this familiar debate, Professor Nichols thoroughly prepares you for an in-depth study of the complexities of free will and determinism. You discover what great thinkers through the ages believe about the choices we make and understand how we might deal with their implications.

From Plato to the Present

Professor Nichols then takes you on an investigation into the origins of the question itself. As with so many central philosophical issues in Western thought, the idea of free will and determinism began with the Greeks. In fact, the Greek philosopher Leucippus made the earliest-known statement of the view of determinism, proclaiming, "Nothing happens at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity." Professor Nichols begins with a broad overview of the history of philosophical thought and exploration as it pertains to the question of free will and determinism.

Professor Nichols illustrates how the concept of fate was defined and treated by these groups:

  • Greeks: In Sophocles' play Oedipus Rex, fate decrees that Oedipus is destined to kill his father and marry his mother. Although his parents leave him to die and Oedipus spends his life trying to escape his fate, in the end he does exactly as the Oracle predicted at his birth. The Greeks believed that, for the most important things in life, a particular fate awaits you.
  • Medieval theologians: St. Augustine, one of Christianity's most important thinkers, upheld that God knows absolutely everything, including every action we take, every decision we make. Nonetheless, Augustine maintained, our choices are still free—God doesn't force us into our decisions. The idea of salvation through God's grace alone was elaborated on more than 1,000 years later by the Protestant theologian John Calvin.
  • Calvinists: Calvin promoted the doctrine of predestination, which he defined as "the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation."
  • Contemporary philosophers: Saul Smilansky, for example, believes that we do not have free will but that we must keep it a secret from the masses. If all people knew their behavior was determined, they would stop behaving morally, he believes.

Are We Morally Responsible for Our Actions?

The question of free will has overwhelming implications for our sense of moral responsibility. If free will makes us accountable for our choices, does the opposite hold true, that determinism absolves us of responsibility?

German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that our moral responsibility stems entirely from our ability to do the right thing—to do our moral duty. Kant's theory implies that if we can make the choice to do the right thing, we must have free will.

If we do not have free will, and our behavior is determined according to what came before—our environment, our genetics, our parents' behavior—what does that mean for our society's ideas of crime and punishment? Should we be held responsible for actions that were inevitable? How do we treat individuals who commit crimes if we believe their backgrounds led them to the crimes?

The debate continues as we gain increasing access to scientific evidence of brain activity related to moral choices. Professor Nichols's discussion of the relationship between the actions and brain activity of criminals is particularly fascinating, which leads us into the examination of whether certain types of criminals, such as psychopaths, are morally responsible for their actions.

Modern Experiments in Philosophy

When we think of philosophy, what usually comes to mind are classical Greek philosophers, ancient mystics, or Enlightenment thinkers from Europe. Professor Nichols, himself a philosopher, introduces us to his peers at universities across the United States who are exploring free will in new ways.

Advances in science and technology enable us to discover actual empirical evidence about what happens in our brains when we make certain kinds of decisions, shedding light on the relationship between what we think of as free will and what's really happening to our physical being.

One view in social psychology says we are unaware of many of the internal causes of our own behavior. On this view, much of what happens in the mind when we make decisions is hidden from us. You will enjoy exploring several experiments that support this view and question our notion of free will.

  • In one study, participants were asked to solve word puzzles that included words such as Florida, wrinkled, and gray—words commonly associated with elderly people. When these participants went to leave the building, they walked toward the elevator more slowly than others whose puzzles included neutral words.
  • In another experiment, a group was asked to imagine characteristics of a professor while another group was asked to think about soccer hooligans. Afterward, both groups were asked Trivial Pursuit questions; those who had envisioned a professor did much better than those who'd been thinking about thugs.
  • Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet explored the relationship between brain activity and decision making. He measured subjects' brain activity using an EEG and their muscular activity using an EMG. He asked them to perform certain small actions, like flexing a finger, and asked them exactly when they decided to perform the action. He discovered that their brains registered activity before they said they had decided to perform the action.

While these experiments are open to interpretation, they seem to suggest we are rather susceptible to unconscious stimuli. Are the decisions we make truly free or subtly influenced by factors we don't even recognize?

Join a Centuries-Old Discussion

Professor Nichols's thorough research and in-depth looks at each side of every argument make Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism a provocative and balanced exploration of this centuries-old discussion. In 2005, he received the Stanton Award, given annually to an innovative scholar working in philosophy and psychology. Professor Nichols, whose research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, also heads a research group at the University of Arizona investigating the psychological factors that influence our thinking about philosophy.

Mining the rich history of philosophy for possible answers, Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism ultimately invites you to come to your own conclusions about whether or not we control our lives.

Hide Full Description
24 lectures
 |  Average 31 minutes each
  • 1
    Free Will and Determinism—The Basic Debate
    Explore with Professor Nichols the evolution of ideas about free will and determinism, one of the core questions in the history of philosophy. You learn three different ways to examine this age-old conundrum. x
  • 2
    Fate and Karma
    Do we determine what happens next, or is it fate? What did the ancient Greeks believe about what controls our lives, and how does that differ from the Hindu concept of karma? x
  • 3
    Divine Predestination and Foreknowledge
    For many theologians, the question of free will is complicated by the idea that God is all-knowing. Understand why John Calvin espoused the idea that God has already determined the course of our lives, including whether we are predestined to go to heaven or hell when we die. x
  • 4
    Causal Determinism
    Causal determinism posits that "events are inevitable because of what happened before." In this lecture, Professor Nichols describes branches of causal determinism such as the Stoics, who believed that there was rational justification for every event. x
  • 5
    Ancient and Medieval Indeterminism
    Doesn't the fact that we think about what we want to do before we make a choice indicate that we have free will? That was the belief of indeterminists, such as Aristotle's follower Alexander of Aphrodisias, who maintained that we deliberate to determine our own optimum path for the future. x
  • 6
    Agent Causation
    Are we the sole cause of our actions? Discover a nuanced perspective on free will, in which we can decide some of our own actions and choose to react to conditions around us, but we cannot control all factors leading to our actions, such as heredity and environment. x
  • 7
    Ancient and Classical Compatibilism
    Some philosophers maintain that there is no conflict between free will and determinism; they can coexist. Learn about compatibilism, the idea that some of our actions are determined by forces beyond our control, and in other cases we are free to choose. x
  • 8
    Contemporary Compatibilism
    Professor Nichols looks at a modern view of compatibilism, as described by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt, that our will is a desire that effectively produces behavior. We experience two desires: to eat ice cream or go on a diet; which wins out and what does that mean for free will? x
  • 9
    Hard Determinism
    Hard determinism says that events in the world happen solely as the result of other events. French philosopher Baron D'Holbach, a naturalist who argued that nature orders the universe and because the mind is part of nature, it follows that determinism is true for the mind as well. x
  • 10
    Free Will Impossibilism
    Contemplate the Buddhist idea that the self does not exist—mental activity is simply a series of events happening on their own. British philosopher Galen Strawson offers a similar argument—that in order to have free will we must be the cause of ourselves, but since we are not, we cannot have free will. x
  • 11
    The Belief in Free Will
    Libertarian Thomas Reid said that belief in free will was a universally human trait, across cultures developed at an early age. Hard determinists, on the other hand, maintain that we believe in free will because we fail to see the real causes of our decisions. Both claims prove problematic. x
  • 12
    Physics and Free Will
    Here Professor Nichols delves into the world of quantum mechanics, explaining an interpretation of the random movement of particles as analogous to the indeterminist nature of the universe. x
  • 13
    Neuroscience and Determinism
    Investigate a series of experiments in which animals demonstrated behavior that would be most beneficial to them in the wild, even under laboratory conditions. The result: Unpredictability is a useful evolutionary trait, but does this indeterministic behavior help us prove that we have free will? x
  • 14
    Neuroscience of Conscious Choice
    Continuing to delve into how scientific study can influence our discussion of free will and determinism, Professor Nichols discusses experiments by Benjamin Libet that indicate that the brain prepares for an action even before we realize we intend to perform the action. x
  • 15
    Psychology and Free Will
    Although we may believe we understand our own minds, motivations, and methods, many psychologists believe we do not have as much insight into the choices we make as we might think. This lecture describes experiments that demonstrate the effect of unconscious stimuli on our behavior. x
  • 16
    Deontological Ethics and Free Will
    Here we explore the age-old question of right and wrong, and how we make the choice between the two. Kant claimed that our intention—what we choose to do—is most important in reflecting our moral responsibility, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, our free will comes in what we decide. x
  • 17
    Utilitarianism and Free Will
    Utilitarianism proposes that the consequences of an action are what matters most, regardless of one's intentions or motives. This theory does not depend on free will because one's choices are not important—only their outcomes. Professor Nichols raises some fascinating ethical questions here. x
  • 18
    Responsibility and the Emotions
    Philosopher David Hume explored the relationship between emotions and morality in a theory known as sentimentalism, which states there is an emotional basis, not a rational one, for our beliefs, but we are still responsible for the choices we make. Modern English philosopher Peter Strawson developed a similar view that proved influential. x
  • 19
    Pessimism and Illusionism
    According to illusionists such as Saul Smilansky, we do not have free will but if everyone recognized that, our society would collapse. It is critical for people to believe in free will—even if it is an illusion—to sustain moral behavior and a sense of responsibility for our actions. x
  • 20
    Optimism and Skepticism
    Derk Pereboom argues that relinquishing our belief in free will could be good for us because we could let go of negative emotions such as anger, guilt, and resentment that stem from believing people have done something hurtful to us of their own free will. x
  • 21
    The Ethics of Punishment
    Examining the dark history of punishment in society and different views of punishment today, Professor Nichols describes backward-looking punishment that focuses simply on making a person pay for his bad actions, versus forward-looking punishment that looks at the value to future society that a punishment might have. x
  • 22
    The Power of Punishment
    The question of free will is inherent in discussions of the effectiveness of punishment and whether retribution or rehabilitation will have a positive or negative effect on both the person being punished and the outside world. Professor Nichols asks whether quarantine, an approximation of our current justice system, is effective. x
  • 23
    Moral Responsibility and Psychopathy
    While our justice system sometimes exonerates people with mental illness from their crimes, does that sense of mercy extend to others? Examine the recent history of psychopaths up to modern discoveries about their brain activity and whether their lack of compassion has a neuroscience basis. x
  • 24
    The Future of Responsibility
    Professor Nichols concludes with a summary of the modern view of free will with an eye toward the future. How will neuroscience and the rule of law affect our ideas about free will and determinism? x

Lecture Titles

Clone Content from Your Professor tab

What's Included

What Does Each Format Include?

Video DVD
Instant Audio Includes:
  • Download 24 audio lectures to your computer or mobile app
  • Downloadable PDF of the course guidebook
  • FREE audio streaming of the course from our website and mobile apps
Video DVD
DVD Includes:
  • 24 lectures on 4 DVDs
  • 144-page printed course guidebook
  • Downloadable PDF of the course guidebook

What Does The Course Guidebook Include?

Video DVD
Course Guidebook Details:
  • 144-page printed course guidebook
  • Suggested readings
  • Questions to consider
  • Timeline

Enjoy This Course On-the-Go with Our Mobile Apps!*

  • App store App store iPhone + iPad
  • Google Play Google Play Android Devices
  • Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Tablet + Firephone
*Courses can be streamed from anywhere you have an internet connection. Standard carrier data rates may apply in areas that do not have wifi connections pursuant to your carrier contract.

Your professor

Shaun Nichols

About Your Professor

Shaun Nichols, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Dr. Shaun Nichols is Professor of Philosophy at The University of Arizona. He holds a joint appointment in Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Professor Nichols earned his bachelor's degree in Philosophy from Stanford University and his Ph.D. from Rutgers University. He previously taught at the College of Charleston, where he held the Harry Lightsey Chair of Humanities, and at the University of Utah. The 2005 recipient of...
Learn More About This Professor
Also By This Professor


Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism is rated 4.1 out of 5 by 52.
Rated 4 out of 5 by from I was meant to like this course... Of course I wasn't meant to like this course. I enjoyed these lectures because they were well-prepared and presented by an interesting and knowledgeable Professor Nichols. I'm a novice when discussing these nearly unanswerable philosophical questions, but here goes: Within the human realm, there is both freewill and deterministic events and processes. The determined 'things' are like: if you are born, you will die. If you live, you will breathe, eat, drink (being merry is a freewill thing); our biology is determined through eons of evolution and cannot be (easily) changed. The freewill aspects in humans can be boiled down to individual and societal. For example the societal aspects might include the broad definition of 'morality', which has been defined by societies throughout history, changing as the needs require. As individuals, we may chose (freely) what aspects of the societal morality we wish to follow. As an example, in past centuries slavery was not considered to be amoral, yet many would disagree (especially the slaves), based on their own views and reflecting their experiences. Within the non human realm, animals have a more direct relationship between animal freewill (quite different from human freewill in this discussion) and determinism. The donkey, when faced with two separate, but equal, piles of hay, will eat from both, most probably...all to help stay alive and procreate. I suppose the donkey's freewill choice is which pile he/she chooses first. In the realm of physics, almost (?) everything is deterministic. A radioactive atom will decay in a prescribed manner, releasing the same amount and type energy every single time. The aspects of quantum physics that 'seem' to behave in a more 'freewill' manner, are (most probably) a result of their not being fully understood by the human observer. All in all, I enjoyed the lectures because it made me think...possibly in a prescribed manner...possibly in my own, unique way. I freely acquired these lectures during a sale that was purposely proposed by the Great use of a coupon was divinely ordained.
Date published: 2020-03-28
Rated 5 out of 5 by from very impressed I got this set to answer questions I have had and was happy to see how thourogh and comprehensive it was. It is not light hearted but I reccomend it to anyone serious about learning.
Date published: 2019-11-10
Rated 4 out of 5 by from This course gives you a survey of the different schools, arguments, and counter arguments on the subject.
Date published: 2019-08-21
Rated 4 out of 5 by from It's Complicated This is an interesting course about a debate which is not an either/or proposition nor (quite rightly) one in which Professor Nichols declares his position. As the professor notes, though a long-standing philosophical debate, Free Will vs. Determinism is susceptible to common sense reasoning rather than difficult philosophical concepts. Professor Nichols has a clear and direct style of delivery and uses good everyday examples to make his points. He starts with the ancients and carries us forward to branch out from the philosophers to embrace the findings of neuroscience and discussions of moral responsibility of psychopaths. That’s quite a trip! I did find over half of the course hard to follow. More often than not, I had to refer to the course guidebook to be sure that I understood all of the qualifications packed into many of the lectures. Even then, I needed to re-read the lecture summaries. Maybe it is me and I should not have tackled this subject in audio format. Please pardon the length of this guidebook quote, but it’s what I had to rely on to stop my head from spinning after the audio lecture on Kant: “Since it is a fact that there is a moral law, we are obligated to behave in certain ways. For instance, we are obligated to keep our promises. At this point, a familiar principle gets invoked to explain Kant’s argument—the principle that “ought” implies “can.” For instance, if it is true that John ought to tell the truth, then it follows that John can tell the truth. If determinism is true, then we can only do whatever we are determined to do. It will never be the case that we ought to have done something else, because it will never be possible that we could have done something else. Thus, Kant concludes that we must have free will: If we didn’t have free will, then we would never be obligated to behave other than we do. Since we do have such obligations (since there is a moral law), we must have free will. Kant claims that deontological ethics requires the existence of free will: Since we really do have obligations, we must have free will. But one might worry that the argument runs equally well in the opposite direction. If we come to think that determinism is true, then one might argue as follows: Deontological ethics is based on the idea that a person’s action is morally wrong only if he ought to have chosen differently. But if someone ought to have chosen differently, that means that he could have chosen differently. If determinism is true, then it is never the case that we could have chosen differently. Therefore, if determinism is true, then from the perspective of deontological ethics, no one ever does anything morally wrong” (Page 77). While I did find this course useful and interesting (including many of those lectures with layer upon layer of qualifications), and will revisit individual lectures, prospective purchasers ought to be aware of what they will be getting into. The 133-page 2008 course guidebook contain good lecture summaries, timeline, glossary, and annotated bibliography.
Date published: 2018-08-07
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Very interesting course. It doesn't realy help one to settle his or her own beliefs, nor do I think it should, but it does expose the thoughts that others have had on the debate.
Date published: 2018-05-21
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Religion, Philosophy and Science come together. Prof. Nichols tackles the topic of free will with an unusual blend of religious, philosophical and scientific insights. While the debate will doubtless be ongoing, I found his approach to be fascinating and logical, and very relevant to practical contemporary issues involving law, ethics and morality.
Date published: 2017-12-03
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Shudda read the reviews Did not finish. Several of the reviewers summarized very well the problems with this course. I should have read the reviews before ordering. But according to what I learned in this course, he should not not be angry with me for my negative review, since it was already determined long before I took the course, and I shouldn't be angry with him for wasting my time and money, or feel any guilt about giving a bad review. So I guess the course did do something useful for me.
Date published: 2017-06-12
Rated 1 out of 5 by from The whole issue is misconceived by philosophy. I gave up on this course because the whole issue has been fundamentally misconceived by philosophy. The central concern of the philosophers of free will is moral responsibility. Their misconception is that only the person who has free will is morally responsible. If moral responsibility is defined as the capacity for moral behavior, or more measurably the likelihood of engaging in moral behavior, then, contrary to the traditional conception, the person with the most free will is the least likely to engage in moral behavior. Free will is defined as the ability to make decisions without constraint. But moral behavior is a result of constraints on immoral behavior, beginning with external constraint through the threat of punishment by the criminal justice system or the threat of shame by one’s peers, and reinforced by internal constraint such as compassion for the potential victim or commitment to rules and principles (conscience). The person who is not constrained by any of these is called a psychopath or sociopath. So it is really the psychopath who has the greatest free will in the moral realm. Short of that, if you believe that you have no free will, and therefore see yourself as not responsible for your actions, then you will also be less likely to try to constrain your own immoral behavior.
Date published: 2016-08-26
  • y_2020, m_11, d_25, h_17
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.12
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_3, tr_49
  • loc_en_US, sid_4235, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getContent, 47.52ms

Questions & Answers

Customers Who Bought This Course Also Bought