The Free Will Defence (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
The Free Will Defence
What is the Free Will Defence?
The Free Will Defence is an attempt to explain why God allows evil and suffering in the world. It argues that:
- God has given up control over human actions in order to bring about a greater good
- By giving humans free will, they can make their own decisions and are responsible for their own actions
- This allows humans to develop valuable qualities such as compassion, courage, patience and generosity
- Moral evil is therefore the price of free will, but free will is worth the price
The Free Will Defence focuses on explaining moral evil (evil caused by human choices) rather than natural evil (earthquakes, diseases, etc.). However, defenders also attempt to extend the argument to cover natural evil.
The challenge of the Free Will Defence
For the Free Will Defence to work, defenders must prove two things:
- Free will necessarily leads to moral evil - it is not possible to have free will without having moral evil in the world
- The results of having free will are worth the price of the suffering it causes
Why free will requires a world with suffering
- Simply giving free will is not enough for moral development
- We must be placed in situations that require us to make decisions and learn about their consequences
- We experience pain and see others experiencing pain, which gives us the opportunity to develop positive qualities
- Pain acts as the stimulus for development
- However, we can also choose to develop negative qualities such as greed, hate, selfishness and cruelty
The Core Principle of Free Will
Genuine free will necessarily includes:
- The permission to do evil
- The ability to do evil
- The opportunity to do evil
Take any of these three away and free will is only an illusion.
Key scholars
Two important versions of the Free Will Defence:
- John Mackie (1917-1981): Australian philosopher who constructed a version of the Free Will Defence to try to show it doesn't work
- Alvin Plantinga (b.1932): American philosopher who defended the Free Will Defence against Mackie's criticisms
John Mackie's account of the Free Will Defence
John Mackie was an atheist who aimed to show the Free Will Defence fails. He wrote a book called The Miracle of Theism, which ironically presented one of the clearest versions of the Free Will Defence. He explained it using a hierarchy of first, second and third-order goods and evils.
First-order goods and evils
First-order goods are basic pleasures and happiness:
- Reading a good book
- Eating a delicious meal
- Experiencing pleasure
First-order evils are basic pains and suffering:
- Toothache
- Breakdown of a relationship
- Physical pain
Key Definitions
First-order goods: "happiness and pleasure"
First-order evils: "unhappiness, pain and misery"
These are the most basic, immediate experiences of pleasure and pain that we encounter in our daily lives.
Second-order goods and evils
Second-order goods are higher virtues that respond to first-order evil:
- Sympathy
- Understanding
- Kindness
- Compassion
- Love
- Generosity
- Self-sacrifice
These are higher-order goods because they maximise first-order good and minimise first-order evil.
Second-order evils are negative responses:
- Spite
- Meanness
- Envy
- Jealousy
- Greed
- Selfishness
These maximise first-order evil and minimise first-order good.
Key Definitions
Second-order goods: "sympathy, understanding, kindness, compassion, love, generosity and self-sacrifice"
Second-order evils: "spite, meanness, envy, jealousy, greed and selfishness"
Notice how second-order goods are responses to suffering - we develop compassion because we see others in pain.
Third-order good: freedom
Freedom is a third-order good because:
- It allows us to choose between putting in place first and second-order goods and evils
- It teaches us to love the good
- It makes us morally responsible
Mackie's conclusion
According to this version of the Free Will Defence:
- God is justified in allowing evil because it permits freedom to choose or reject the good
- It teaches us to be morally responsible
- Without the evils of pain and suffering, we could never develop the greater goods of courage, sympathy and love
- The price is that many will reject these goods and become hateful and malicious
Mackie's Hierarchy Illustrated
Consider how these levels work together in practice:
Level 1 - Basic experience: A child falls and scrapes their knee (first-order evil: pain)
Level 2 - Moral response: You could respond with compassion and help (second-order good) Or you could mock them and walk away (second-order evil)
Level 3 - Freedom: Your ability to freely choose between these responses is the third-order good This choice makes you morally responsible and allows moral development
Mackie's diagram of the Free Will Defence
God (Fourth-order good)
↓ creates us with freedom
Freedom (Third-order good)
↓ allows us to instantiate
Second-order good ⟷ Second-order evil
↓ maximises/minimises ↓ minimises/maximises
First-order good First-order evil
Mackie's rejection of the Free Will Defence
Despite presenting this clear version, Mackie argued the Free Will Defence fails. His main argument was:
Mackie's key objection
If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?
Mackie's reasoning:
- It is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices all of the time
- God could have created humans so that they would only make free, good choices
- God did not do so
Mackie's Challenge to God's Goodness
Therefore:
- Either God lacks the power to create beings who always freely choose good, or
- God is not loving enough to do so
- Either way, the Free Will Defence fails
- Mackie concludes: God does not exist
This is a powerful objection because it suggests that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God should have been able to create a better world.
Alvin Plantinga's defence of the Free Will Defence
Plantinga argued that Mackie's criticism fails because it is logically impossible for God to create humans who always freely choose the good.
Key argument against Mackie
The phrase "make someone freely choose the good" is a logical contradiction - like a "round square". Here's why:
- "Free to choose" means there is a real choice between real options
- Being "made" to only choose the good means you are doing what God has made you do
- This is not a free choice at all
- You would not even be able to think evil thoughts
Plantinga's Key Insight
Therefore:
- There is no possible world where humans have genuine free will but never make morally bad choices
- God can do everything that is logically possible
- But it is logically impossible to make people so they always freely choose the good
- This does not limit God's power - God cannot do the logically impossible
Just as God cannot create a square circle or make 2 + 2 = 5, God cannot create free beings who are causally determined to always choose good.
Key terms
Libertarianism (in the free will debate): "The view that although some aspects of human existence are determined by physics, biology and chemistry, humans nevertheless have a degree of free will and can be held morally responsible for their actions."
Causal determinism: "The view that every event is determined by preceding events and conditions and by the laws of nature, so humans do not have free will."
Compatibilism: "Determinism and free will are compatible where there are no external constraints on a person's actions (such as being tortured), in which case a person is free to act within the constraints of their own motives and desires."
Plantinga's possible worlds argument (optional detailed explanation)
Plantinga used the concept of possible worlds to show Mackie was wrong. Consider three possible worlds (PW):
PW1 (our actual world):
- God creates persons with morally significant free will
- God does not causally determine people to always choose right
- There is evil and suffering in PW1
PW2 (a world of robots):
- God does not create persons with morally significant free will
- God causally determines people to always choose right
- There is no evil or suffering in PW2
PW3 (Mackie's proposed world - the impossible world):
- God creates persons with morally significant free will
- God causally determines people to always choose right
- There is no evil or suffering in PW3
Understanding Possible Worlds
A "possible world" is a way of describing how reality could have been different. When we say something is "logically possible," we mean there exists at least one possible world where it occurs. When something is "logically impossible," there is no possible world where it can exist.
Why PW3 is logically impossible
- To have morally significant free will, people must be able to do morally bad things whenever they want
- But in PW3, they are causally determined never to do bad things
- If you wanted to tell a lie, you could not, because God's causal forces would prevent you
- In a world without any evil, you could not even think evil thoughts
- The three statements about PW3 are logically incompatible
- Therefore God cannot create PW3 - it's logically impossible
Why PW3 Cannot Exist
Imagine you're in PW3 and you see an opportunity to lie for personal gain:
Option A - You have free will: You can genuinely choose to lie or tell the truth. But if you can choose to lie, then evil is possible in PW3, contradicting its definition.
Option B - You're determined to be good: Some force prevents you from lying. But this means you don't have genuine free will - you're being controlled.
The contradiction: PW3 requires both that you have free will (so you could lie if you wanted) AND that you're determined never to lie (so evil never happens). These requirements contradict each other, making PW3 logically impossible.
Plantinga's conclusion
- Plantinga successfully shows that Mackie's criticism fails
- It would be impossible to causally determine human actions and at the same time allow them to be morally free
- The Christian Free Will Defence is not logically incoherent
- This doesn't prove the Free Will Defence is true, but it shows it provides a reasonable explanation for evil
Can the Free Will Defence account for natural evil?
Natural evil presents a particular challenge for the Free Will Defence because it is not caused by human free will - it is caused by forces of nature. Examples include:
- Earthquakes
- Tsunamis
- Diseases like the Black Death (which killed one-third of the world's population)
- Cancerous diseases
Why natural evil seems to be a problem
- Most natural evils cannot be avoided by human choice
- There is no obvious reason why God could not have made a world without earthquakes, tidal waves, killer storms, asteroid strikes, etc.
- These are not under human control, so humans cannot be blamed when they happen
The Challenge of Natural Evil
Unlike moral evil (murder, theft, cruelty), natural evil seems to have nothing to do with human free will. An earthquake kills thousands - but no human chose to cause that earthquake. How can the Free Will Defence explain this?
How the Free Will Defence can account for natural evil
Despite these challenges, the Free Will Defence can offer some explanation:
1. The world must be free to follow natural laws
- Geological processes show the world evolved from a primitive stage
- Natural forces like gravity are inevitable parts of how the world works
- These forces cause both good and bad effects
- If God constantly intervened to prevent accidents, we would know God exists with certainty
- This knowledge would undermine our freedom (we would always try to please God)
2. Natural evil allows us to develop second-order goods
- When we see people suffering from natural disasters, we can develop compassion, sympathy and empathy
- We have opportunities to help victims and show love and generosity
- Without suffering, these valuable qualities could not be developed
3. Nature must be consistent and reliable
- Gravity causes earthquakes and tsunamis, but also holds planets in orbit
- Fire can burn and destroy, but also provides warmth and cooking
- If God prevented every accident, the laws of nature would be unreliable
- We would lose our ability to make meaningful choices based on understanding how the world works
The Freedom of Natural Laws
Just as humans must be morally free to choose between good and evil, the world must be free to work according to its own rules, without God intervening like an "almighty magician".
If God prevented every natural disaster, we would lose:
- Our ability to trust natural laws
- The opportunity to develop virtues in response to suffering
- Our genuine freedom (knowing God would always intervene)
Conclusion on natural evil
The Free Will Defence extends beyond human freedom to suggest that a world governed by consistent natural laws is necessary for genuine human freedom and moral development, even though these laws sometimes cause suffering.
Strengths and weaknesses of the Free Will Defence
Strengths
1. Plantinga refutes Mackie's logical objection
Plantinga successfully shows that both his explanations (MSR 1 and MSR 2) are logically possible, proving that Mackie's criticism fails.
2. The logical impossibility argument is sound
Plantinga is right that it would be logically impossible for God to create a world (PW3) where people have free will but never make morally bad choices. Even an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible.
3. Natural evils do produce second-order goods
There is no doubt that natural evils bring about valuable moral goods such as love, sympathy and compassion. These goods are more valuable than simple happiness and pleasure.
4. Establishes the value of freedom
The Free Will Defence successfully establishes that a world with free creatures is more valuable than a world without them. Freedom is what makes love, joy and goodness worth having. Without freedom, there is no real achievement or happiness.
5. Humans value risk
Many people engage in activities where the risk of pain or death increases enjoyment - such as extreme sports, exploration, or challenging endeavours. For some people, without risk there can be no real enjoyment.
Why Freedom Matters
Consider the difference between:
- A computer programmed to say "I love you" every morning
- A person who freely chooses to express their love
The second has genuine value precisely because it involves free choice. The Free Will Defence argues that this principle applies to all moral goodness.
Weaknesses
1. Does not prove the defence is true
Even though Plantinga shows the Free Will Defence is logically coherent, this does not prove it is the actual reason God allows evil. The explanation of natural evil through Adam and Eve's sin (MSR 2) relies on a mythological story and lacks credibility.
2. Relies on unprovable libertarian free will
The Free Will Defence assumes libertarianism is correct - that humans have genuine free will despite being influenced by biology, chemistry and physics. This cannot be proved. Other philosophers hold determinist or compatibilist views of free will, so any verdict on the Free Will Defence must be labelled "unproved" until we know more about free will.
3. Does not address the evidential problem of evil
The strongest objection is that the Free Will Defence has no convincing response to the sheer extent and intensity of evil in the world. At the point of creation, God must have known the full extent of human evil - the Holocaust, genocides, torture, and countless atrocities. Is freedom really worth this price? Many would argue, like Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamazov, that freedom is not worth its price tag.
The Evidential Problem
While Plantinga shows that the existence of evil is logically compatible with God's existence, he doesn't address the amount of evil. Critics ask:
- Why does a child need to suffer from bone cancer for humans to develop compassion?
- Could we not develop moral virtues with less extreme suffering?
- Is the Holocaust really necessary for human freedom to be valuable?
This is known as the evidential problem of evil - the sheer quantity and intensity of suffering makes God's existence seem unlikely, even if not logically impossible.
Exam tip
You are not required to know any particular version of the Free Will Defence beyond the general form. However, referring to specific examples from Mackie and Plantinga will greatly improve your knowledge and understanding of the argument. Focus on the core concepts rather than memorising every detail.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The Free Will Defence argues that God allows evil because genuine free will necessarily includes the ability to do evil - without this possibility, free will would be an illusion.
-
John Mackie argued God could have made humans who always freely choose the good. Alvin Plantinga successfully refuted this by showing it is logically impossible to "make someone freely choose" anything.
-
The defence establishes that freedom is valuable and worth the cost of moral evil, though it struggles to fully account for the extent of natural evil and the evidential problem of suffering.
-
The defence relies on libertarian free will, which cannot be proved, so any conclusion about its success must remain tentative.
-
While the Free Will Defence provides a logically coherent explanation for why God allows evil, it does not prove this is the actual reason, and many find it insufficient given the extent of suffering in the world.