WJEC Ethics 4 Overview

This is your guide to understanding predestination, determinism, and free will - three competing ideas about human choice and responsibility. You'll explore what major thinkers believed about whether we control our destiny or if it's already been decided for us.

These concepts directly impact how we view morality, punishment, and even prayer. Understanding them will help you tackle exam questions about human nature and God's role in our lives.

Quick tip: Focus on learning the key differences between each position and their main supporters - this will be crucial for your essays.

Predestination

Think your future's already written? That's exactly what predestination argues - God has already decided who's going to heaven or hell before you're even born.

Calvin's five key points show how extreme this view gets. He believed in total corruption (humans can't do good without God), unconditional election (God picks the saved before birth), and limited atonement (Jesus only died for some people, not everyone). This creates what's called Calvinistic fatalism - your fate is sealed regardless of what you do.

Augustine laid the groundwork centuries earlier. He argued we're all born as a "lump of sin" because of Adam's fall, inheriting corruption through concupiscence. Only God's irresistible grace can save the chosen few, whilst everyone else is doomed no matter how hard they try.

The biblical evidence seems mixed. Verses like "apart from me you can do nothing" support predestination, but critics argue this makes God seem cruel and renders human effort pointless.

Exam focus: Remember the difference between Augustine's "lump of sin" concept and Calvin's "total corruption" - both argue humans are helpless without God's grace.

Determinism

What if it's not God controlling you, but science itself? Determinism argues that everything - including your thoughts and actions - is the inevitable result of prior causes, making free will just an illusion.

Scientific determinism points to compelling evidence. Newton's laws show how physical forces control matter, whilst Darwin's natural selection demonstrates how our characteristics are inherited. Modern genetics reveals how DNA influences behaviour - the MAOA "warrior gene" has even been used as a legal defence in court cases.

Psychological determinism shows how conditioning shapes us. Pavlov's famous dog experiment proved that behaviour can be programmed through rewards and punishments. John Locke illustrated this with his locked room analogy - a man thinks he's choosing to stay in a room, but it's actually locked.

Soft determinists like Ayer try to find middle ground. He distinguished between being "caused" (internal factors) versus "forced" (external pressure). Hobbes similarly argued we can have free will for internally motivated actions whilst still being determined by our desires.

Key insight: Hard determinists say everything is predetermined, whilst soft determinists believe some actions can still be considered "free" even in a determined world.

Implications of Determinism and Predestination

So what happens if everything's already decided? These beliefs completely reshape how we think about blame, morality, and justice.

Under determinism, should we punish criminals? Some argue yes - punishment can still condition better behaviour and protect society. Others say it's pointless since people aren't truly responsible for genetically influenced actions. The legal system struggles with this when defendants claim genetic defences.

Predestination creates different problems for understanding God. If God predestines everything, is He responsible for evil? Calvin and Augustine argued God remains good because He mercifully saves some despite all humans deserving punishment. Critics counter that this makes God seem malevolent.

Prayer and miracles become puzzling under predestination. Augustine suggested only the elect would even desire to pray, making prayer requests meaningless for changing outcomes. If everything's predetermined, miracles must have been planned from the start rather than responses to human requests.

Normative ethics - rules about right and wrong - face serious challenges. If we can't choose our actions, moral rules seem pointless. However, defenders argue these rules can still influence behaviour and provide social benefits.

Critical thinking: Consider whether moral responsibility makes sense if our actions are predetermined - this is crucial for evaluation questions.

Free Will

Fighting back against predestination, free will advocates argue humans genuinely control their choices and bear real responsibility for their actions.

Pelagius directly challenged Augustine, arguing that original sin didn't corrupt humanity - Adam was merely a bad example, not a source of inherited guilt. He believed God wouldn't give us laws if we couldn't follow them, and that we need to mature by taking responsibility for our choices. The Council of Carthage rejected his views, but they remained influential.

Arminius took a middle path, accepting that original sin affects us but arguing that prevenient grace - God's help available to everyone - enables genuine choice. Unlike Calvin's unconditional election, Arminius proposed conditional election based on whether people choose to accept God's grace. Everyone has the possibility of salvation.

Biblical support for free will includes verses like "each will die for their own sins" and references to human choice. However, the biblical evidence appears divided, with stronger support seeming to favour predestination.

The reward and punishment argument strongly supports free will - it seems unfair to reward or punish people for actions they couldn't control. This logical point remains one of free will's strongest defences.

Remember: Arminius was originally Calvinist but changed his mind because he felt predestination made humans into "God's minions."

Liberalism and Philosophical Freedom

Taking free will to its extreme, liberalism argues that humans are radically free and fully responsible for creating their own meaning and values.

Sartre's existentialism claims freedom is so obvious that people try to deny it through "bad faith" - self-deception to avoid responsibility. His waiter example shows someone pretending to "be" a waiter rather than choosing to act like one. Without God, humans must rely on their own reason and accept the curse of responsibility for their choices.

Rogers' humanistic psychology focuses on self-actualisation - becoming your authentic self by breaking free from external conditioning. Most people become "deterministic robots" when they abandon their true feelings to please others. Only 1-2% achieve full self-actualisation where their ideal and actual selves align.

Scientific support comes from researchers like Sirigu, who found a specific brain region in the parietal cortex that seems to control conscious decisions. When stimulated, patients reported wanting to move specific body parts, suggesting a physical location for free will.

Quantum mechanics also challenges determinism by showing genuine randomness at the smallest scales, potentially creating space for free choice within natural laws.

Evaluation point: Critics note that Sirigu's research only shows where decisions might occur, not how free will actually works - it's still largely theoretical.

Implications of Free Will and Liberalism

If we're genuinely free, everything changes about morality, justice, and our relationship with God.

Criminal justice makes perfect sense under free will - people deserve punishment because they chose their actions. Legal systems worldwide operate on this assumption. However, Sartre's "bad faith" concept suggests people often deny their freedom, potentially undermining moral responsibility.

God's character looks different under free will. Omnipotence seems limited if humans can reject God's will, though defenders argue God chooses to limit His power to preserve human freedom. Omnibenevolence appears stronger since everyone gets a genuine chance at salvation, making divine justice fairer.

Prayer and miracles become meaningful under free will. Prayer provides real communication with God who can offer guidance and forgiveness. However, miracles create a puzzle - if God intervenes, doesn't that override human freedom and natural law?

Moral responsibility reaches its peak under liberalism. Sartre argues we bear full responsibility for our choices and their consequences. Rogers' self-actualisation suggests we're only truly free when we break conditioning and align with our authentic selves.

Normative ethics gain genuine meaning when people can choose to follow or reject moral rules. However, some argue that external moral authorities might constrain authentic freedom and prevent true self-actualisation.

Key debate: Does genuine freedom require the possibility of choosing evil, and what does this mean for understanding God's role in human suffering?