Many individuals, throughout their lifetime, will act in a manner that forces them to

ask the question: does humanity free will? The question remains prevalent in pop culture as

well, cultivating in movies such as The Truman Show and The Shawshank Redemption, which

is a testament to its relevance in the lives of most of humanity. In fact, it appears to be one of

the most relevant questions for people, for as much as one may like to ignore it, each person

makes choices every day that may ultimately alter the entire course of their life. Human

beings, however, must have free will because it underpins the existence of morality and good

versus evil in religious and secular contexts.

First, the existence of morality serves to prove that free will must exist. In religious

beliefs, morality tends to be classified under the umbrella of “sin”, which is defined as

disobeying any deity’s will for humanity. Sin serves as a way for god(s) to rule over humans,

their creation, and the laws surrounding the degree of sin and if forgiveness for wrongdoing is

possible ultimately characterize what life for each human soul will be like after they die:

heaven or hell, reincarnation or eternal rest, and so on. The concept of sin as a whole is

integral to the structure of most modern, and certainly the most practiced, religions. In

“Maimonides on Freedom of Will and Moral Responsibility”, Moshe Sokol discusses the

views of prominent Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, on sin and its role in justifying free

will. Sokol cites Maimonides in his article, stating, “Were a person compelled to act

according to the dictates of predestination then the commands and prohibitions of the Law

would become null and the Law would be completely false, since one would have no freedom

of choice in what one does” (Sokol 27). The “Law” here refers to the concept of sin, which

forms the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. If humanity did not have free

will, there would be no need for “sin”, as one’s actions would not belong to oneself and

therefore, they cannot be held culpable for their own choices. Humanity only needs the

concept of sin because choices can be made: if each human decision could be ascribed to
some higher power, then the sin belongs not to the actor, but to he who ordered that it be

done. This conclusion can also be applied to the secular idea of morality. Each and every

person has their own moral compass. Deep within humankind, there are sets of beliefs which

can inform decisions when choosing what is good and bad. However, if free will was not a

privilege afforded to the species, why would humanity even hold these sets of beliefs? Morals

would ultimately be useless because, as seen above, the actions of each person would not be

of their own volition, and thus, they would not need any such codes of good and bad to help

them choose their path forward. If this was the case, surely morals would have been bred out

of humanity through the course of history. Natural selection states that only the fittest may

survive to reproduce, and oftentimes it is true that morals may hold one back from acting in

the way that best benefits them. Many, if not most, people have faced a dilemma where the

right thing to do is harder and more detrimental to themself. And yet, these people will still

act in a way that hurts them for the sake of their morals. If free will did not exist, and

therefore humanity did not need morals, then why has morality not been bred out of the

species? Thus, humankind still has morality because it is still needed for survival, and by

some process more complex and unknown than natural selection, has been preserved. To

summarize, free will must exist because if it did not, the ideas of sin and morality would be

entirely void.

Furthermore, free will must exist in order for there to be both good and evil in the

world. Most, if not all, people will agree that there is true evil present in their lives, that they

have either witnessed, heard of, or have had committed against them. This premise is one of

the major problems for those believing in a modern Western god. The beliefs of the

Abrahamic religions, which half of all people practice internationally, believe in a god that is

omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. And yet, evil exists. How can this be

reconciled? Many have argued that if evil exists, it must be God’s responsibility, so either he
is not omnipotent, and cannot truly do anything, not omniscient, and does not know of all

evils occurring in the universe, or not omnibenevolent, and wants bad things to happen to

people. For many years, religious philosophers struggled to find logical fallacies in this

argument. However, in the writing “Free Will Defense” by Alvin Plantinga, a new strategy is

put forth to justify the all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god. When confronted with the

problem of evil, Plantinga writes, “A world containing creatures who are significantly free…

is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now

God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right.

For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right

freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable

of moral evil” (Plantinga). Plantinga agrees to the idea that god is omniscient, omnipotent,

and omnibenevolent, but he is able to defend him from the responsibility of evil by

demonstrating that in order for human beings to be free, good and bad must both exist. If

human beings were born to be totally, morally good, then they would not truly be free, and

thus humanity had to be capable of evil in order to be free. The converse of this is also true: if

good and evil both exist, which is the accepted premise of this thought experiment, then

humanity must be free. Human beings are able to commit acts of moral righteousness and

corruption: one can find each on the news everyday. If there was a god, and he existed

according to the original principles of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence,

would not he allow humanity to only be good? But then, the species would not have freedom

of choice. It is free will in itself that allows for good and evil to coexist. Without free will, all

people would act in accordance with whatever higher power’s moral code, which would

likely not be as disorderly as human beings contradicting themselves and their species

through acting with both good and evil intentions. Some may say that a benevolent god

would not allow there to be evil in the world despite the fact that, as Plantinga argues, it is
necessary for humans to have free will. However, if there existed only good in the world, and

humanity did not know sadness or pain, would the species be able to identify “good” at all? If

there was no evil, then it would be impossible to find real, true joy, because everyday would

be the same monotonous pleasure. Humanity would not know the true happiness that comes

from relief. This is why, Plantinga argues, a world of morally free creatures is better than a

world of morally good creatures: human beings having choices and struggles makes

contentment and pleasure all the more sweeter. From a secular standpoint, it goes mostly

without saying that free will must exist, as it has yet to be proven that there is a deity that

controls the actions of humanity. This is one of the major issues with contradicting the

existence of free will: if humankind does not have freedom of choice, then there must be

some other being that controls the fate of the species. Believing that humans do not have free

will requires belief in some sort of intangible being, thus creating a religion. But, it also

stands to reason that following the logic applied above to religion, humanity must still have

free will. Imagine there was some sort of powerful deity that created the world, eventually

discovered by advancing technology and scientific theory. In this scenario, the existence of

this higher power can be mathematically, undeniably proven. In accordance to general

philosophies surrounding religions, this deity would, at the very least, be omnipotent and

omniscient, and the entirety of the Earth would have been created according to their clear,

all-knowing vision. If this was the case, why would humans constantly contradict themselves,

behaving both maliciously and benevolently in the same lifetime, or even in the same day?

One can assume that with the presence of an all-powerful being, the entirety of the world

would behave in one distinctive way, according to their vision. However, it is known and

accepted that human beings behave on each extreme end of the moral spectrum. Thus, if it is

true that good and evil both exist, which is the reality the species experiences every day, then

humanity must have free will. Overall, because moral good and moral evil both exist, which
is a premise that has been proven, then freedom of choice must be a characteristic of the

human species.

Now, for the overarching question: why does it matter if humans have free will?

Many will say that regardless of what the true answer to this question is, everyone is going to

get up tomorrow and follow the same routine they always have, and then they will come

home, go to bed, and wake up tomorrow to do it all over again. Consider this proposition:

imagine a game of the Sims. The Sims is a reality-based game in which one can create

different human avatars and have them behave according to the player’s will. The Sims fall in

love, build homes, find successful career paths, and, should the player wish, achieve

happiness and peace. But it does not matter, really, what the Sims do or who they are.

Ultimately, they are only pawns in the game, and everything they accomplish is irrelevant, as

it was predestined according to the player’s will. All of their accolades fall to the player who

controlled the avatars all along. Should free will not be real, this is the truth of humanity. If

there is no freedom of choice, then there ceases to be joy in creation or beauty in love. No

longer will human beings bathe in the glory of progress, because this progress will not belong

to humanity. It will be solely accredited to whomever may be controlling the game. This is

why it matters that human beings have free will: not because it will change the fact that

everyone will get up tomorrow and do the same old routine, but because one can find glory,

joy, and pride in their lives. Without the knowledge that one must choose their path everyday,

life would be dull and pointless. Knowing that freedom does belong to the human race gives

life, as it is known, meaning.

In conclusion, human beings must have free will because the species both has moral

values and can perform acts of good and evil. Both of these sentiments can be justified in

religious and secular contexts. Furthermore, believing in free will motivates people to choose

their own destiny and find themselves along the way. Life is not merely some ploy, created by
some god who does not actually care where their pawn ends up. Life is a gift, as is free will,

and all human beings should be careful as to not take their right to choose for granted,

because though it requires the species to have moral responsibility, it also allows for

humanity to flourish in glory.