Overview: Free Will vs. Pre-determinism. Is Free Will only an apparent power in the human body or is it a real tool? How do we know it exists? What is the nature of this Free Will and does it collide with the observable human nature? Two diverging approaches to this fundamental question.
Everyone’s actions are the result of a chain of events; cause and effect. Everything in this physical world has a precedent that caused its existence, nothing physical comes “by itself.” Hence, all of our actions, as well, have a thought behind them that caused them (e.g. a memory of some sort or an incentive of some sort). Even our subconscious actions are caused by subconscious thoughts that preceded it. Our actions are influenced either by our genetic nature or life experiences; this includes our personality, thoughts, feelings, surroundings, and many more factors. Even a sway of the hand done for seemingly no purpose, was triggered by the brain for a subconscious reason.
This begs the question: how can we have “Free Will” to perform the Mitzvos, if all of our actions are either way predetermined by our Creator Himself who gave us our genetic makeup, our life experiences, and social surroundings?
When an Orthodox Jew prays in the morning, is it not because of his strict Jewish upbringing? When one refrains from thinking negative impure thoughts, is it not because of an inner inspiration? What then is Freedom of Choice? Aren’t all our actions dictated by a natural inclination that mandated the specific action to be done?
We will propose two diverging approaches in understanding the concept of Free Will, also known as Freedom of Choice. First is the more mystical approach to it and then there’s the more rational approach to it.
The mystical (Chassidic) approach
So let’s begin with what we know about Freedom of Choice. First, it’s important to note that the concept of Free Will only exists by actions related to Mitzvos,[i] or in the case of a Gentile, the Seven Noahide Laws and their branches.[ii] By our other mundane actions, however, no Free Will is expressed or active, but is rather predetermined as per the rules of nature. For example, if one chooses a roll of sushi over a slice of pizza, it is because the balance of taste-buds in his or her mouth at the moment was inclined to enjoy a sushi over a pizza.
Let it be noted that frequently in Jewish sources the term Free Will is used loosely, as a borrowed term, to describe the human ability to use intellect versus the animal’s instinctive role in their decision-making process. Here, however, we are going to discuss the true definition of Free Will, a will that is free even of intellect or any other predetermined factors.
Free Will is indeed not an ability of this physical nature. It is an element of divine powers granted to humans,[iii] and humans only; for Mitzvos, and Mitzvos only. This divine power[iv] is beyond the physical nature of “cause and effect” but is just the independent decision of doing either “good” or “bad.”[1] Just as God Himself, of course, isn’t the effect of a cause, since He is unlimited and not the result of anything before Him, so too applies to Free Will. “When God created man, He created him in the image of the Lord.”[v] God gave humans this fascinating supernatural ability to choose an action without the influence of another existence. This is by far the greatest human ability.
When we do Mitzvos, it is a mixture of Free Will and predetermined natures. Sometimes it is more of one than the other but usually more pre-determination. The fact that there’s more pre-determination involved can easily be observed. The fact that those brought up in an Orthodox religious environment are much more likely to do more Mitzvos, is precisely because they are doing it mostly out of natural reasons, such as inspiration, social-pressure, and convenience.
Now, obviously this Free Will power doesn’t come in full-force by our everyday actions. As a matter of fact, it barely comes in full-force. There are decisions we make that are easily decided with only a small chance of one side winning. For example, praying in the morning is practically a must for an Orthodox Jew; the thought of not praying is so slim to him. In this action, barely any Free Will exists. Or, to be more accurate, Free Will existed 100%, yet it was easily overridden by the practically inevitable decision to pray due to natural influences.
However, by a decision one has to make regarding thinking negative thoughts, for example, it is often a huge battle in the mind with influences from both sides clashing—causing a self-debate. The pre-determination is not as dominant to actually influence a decision, having influences for both opposite decisions, and therefore a sort of stale-mate. In such a case, the Free Will kicks-in, and strongly. [Yes, it is possible that sometimes an influence and pre-determination caused the final decision, but this is not necessarily.] The Free Will was able to kick-in much because the pre-determination over here wasn’t so dominant in the decision making.
Now even though at times it may seem that it was actually a minor natural “inspiration” or “cause” that determined the final outcome in this self-debate—not necessarily was that so. Sometimes the Free Will enclothes itself into a “natural” persuasion that appears to be the final decision-maker even though it actually wasn’t the decision-maker. An example for such a concept would be the bias nature of a human being. Many times we rationalize things and have ourselves believe in it thinking that we can logically explain it. In reality though, the person only believes in it since that’s how he or she was brought up.[2] The rationalization is only a way for the bias nature of the person to encloth itself in logic as if it were the decision-maker. So too in our case. The Free Will is the “bias” in which the person already determined a decision and only afterwards does the person encloth this decision in a rational cause appearing to be the reason for his or her decision.
Let’s get back into the discussion of when Free Will exits.
In cases where it is a 90%—10% decision (such as the case of an Orthodox Jew praying in the morning)[3]—Free Will barely influences, though it exists (but is overpowered by the dominant natural desire to pray). In cases of 50%—50%[4] decisions, Free Will exists very much and that’s where the real challenge is. The in-between cases such as 75%—25% decisions, Free Will exists slightly. So, if one makes a stronger than usual Free Will decision in such a case, it will override the natural inclinations (which otherwise would have overpowered the smaller Free Will).[5] Although humans usually cannot evaluate whether their decision was influenced or was of Free Will, the Judge in Heaven can evaluate this very fine line.
A parable to bring out this delicate idea would be two pro-wrestlers of equal strength and skill wrestling each other. If a third wrestler—small and weak—was to pick a side and help him against his opponent—that side would surely win. Our natural inclinations often wrestle each other (with reasons encouraging the specific decision and reasons discouraging it) and it is in such cases where the third small and weak wrestler—our Free Will[6]—is actually a game-changer to bring the side he chooses to victory.
Free Will exists by every person; the only question is in which part of the Free Will spectrum is the prime 50%—50% choice. By each individual it is different. Wherever that prime 50%—50% Free Will is, it fades to less and less Free Will the more you move away from that center area of the spectrum. A person’s upbringing, personality and life experiences will constantly shift this prime Free Will area. As an example, for an Orthodox Jew, the challenge of not speaking lashon hara is a challenge that may be somewhere close to the center of the spectrum—the 50%-50% area. For a non-religious Jew, however, the center of the spectrum may be the challenge to don Tefillin once a week.
In the truest sense of the term, Free Will is the core of a person, and is the purest refined “I” that is independent and has no external aspects. It is the job of this power to choose between the influence of the Animalistic Soul and the divine Soul, both of which are influences for Mitzvos decisions.[vi] I wouldn’t believe this novel human power existed, if not for the very being of infinity, God Himself, teaching us this concept in His holy Torah.
Leaving the scientific possibility of this aside (with the quantum mechanics’ applications extremely controversial), it is most certainly philosophically possible—despite there being no positive (nor negative) scientific evidence to support (or unsupport) it in the lab. This is because it is almost impossible for contemporary science to measure the smallest of matter in our neurological makeup with exact precision and knowledge of the laws of cause and effect).
Being that Free Will is the choice between good and evil, we have to understand why a person would voluntarily choose evil. A person chooses good because a person’s essence is good and he thus gets in touch with his essence when choosing to do good. [This explains why people inherently seek to do good.[7]] The choice of doing evil, on the other hand, is not the decision to do bad because it’s bad but is rather the decision to fall for our natural selfish tendencies.
How do we know there’s Free Will?
The concept isn’t mentioned in the Written Torah joining the dozens of other fundamental concepts not mentioned in the Written Torah (see here). Traces of the concept can be found in early rabbinic Law[vii] although it would be possible to interpret that rabbinic statement in a way that avoids this novel concept of Free Will. Yes, it is possible that there is no real Free Will (in the fashion explained above), but here is a philosophical reason to believe that there is:
It would seem rather ridiculous for God to have created a universe and command its human inhabitants to a specific code of law—when He Himself pre-programed His creations to the actions that they will do. You just don’t command something to a robot that you yourself pre-programed and know what it will do. That would be similar to a child playing Lego with himself.
That is all the Chassidic approach to the concept.[viii] [8]
The rational approach
The rational approach is that Free Will is indeed merely a perception that we have from our conscious experience. It is not an objectively free choice but a choice that ultimately we feel like we have destiny over. We feel like we are making the choice although it is our DNA, upbringing, and neurological makeup at that given time that is deciding for us.
By this approach to Free Will, the definition of Free Will is that we are not like animals who make instinctive decisions. Rather we can be commanded to do something and weigh the consequences of doing it or not. This explains why children are said to not have real Free Will.[9] It is our intellectual ability that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Humans alone have this Freedom of Choice. This Free Will applies to all decisions in life, including the decision whether or not to serve God.
Scientifically speaking (i.e. the study of procedures of this world), we have no idea if there’s Free Will or not because it would be practically impossible to test the micro-neurons in the brain and the cells in the DNA to see if we can predict—based on the laws of nature—the actions of this individual. Nature speaking, Free Will should not and cannot exist because everything need be in the realms of cause and affect.
Despite what we said, the philosophical possibility for there not to be Free Will is actually rather significant. As explained in chapter “God is Not Bound by Our Morality”, we must say, philosophically, that God’s intentions for anything cannot be limited to a reason that applies to humans. Hence, here as well, the philosophical argument for Free Will isn’t objectively true because God is higher than any reason or logic possible. He could have just “decided” to “want” to create robots that He pre-programed and yet still commands them to do certain commandments (and obviously that command itself is part of the program and would push the robot closer to doing the command).
This explains why he made the world in the form of pre-determinism—at least most of the time—despite the fact that he “commanded” this very pre-programed creation to do his commandments (and it will usually do or not do it based off this program)! This makes our decision to serve God or not a part of our general decision-making which is indeed pre-determined yet, consciously in our heads, our decision.
God’s pre-knowledge
On a different note, many people question Free Will from the fact that God, who is the all-knowing, already knows what we will choose in the future. Thus it was already decided, so to speak, what we will choose. The question then is how can we at the present moment of the challenge actually make a decision, since He already knows—even before we decide—what we would choose.
But I see no issue here. Although He can know what we will end up choosing, it is still we who are choosing on our own accord (in contrast to if we were pre-programmed). It is merely that He can foresee what we will end up choosing. Because of the limitations of time that we possess, we must look at this procedure in hindsight i.e. after the Free Will action was done. This is not an issue in the Free Will but in the fact that we are limited to understand everything in limitations of past, present, and future—a limitation that the Creator doesn’t possess.
If we take the rational approach to Free Will, this question is certainly unbothersome. Just because God knows what we will end up choosing, doesn’t mean that in our conscious world we are the ones deciding. Therefore, for us it is considered Free Will.
___________________
[1] Alternatively, the decision to do good or to be negligent and follow the animalistic instinct of humans and transgress. In this model, one cannot essentially “choose” to do “bad”; rather, he or she can choose to do good or to fall prey to our animalistic nature and sin. So the person isn’t essentially “choosing” to do bad, but rather to not do good. We shall readdress this later on.
[2] See “How Can So Many People in the World be Mistaken?” for more on this topic.
[3] Meaning that every day, the Orthodox Jew has a 90% feeling to pray and a 10% feeling not to, for example. Thus, he will inevitably pray on a daily basis. If he voluntarily skips a day of praying, it is only because a specific circumstance of that day influenced that decision (e.g. anger, depression, or a rationalization).
[4] Although in essence nothing can really be exactly equal, in our case it doesn’t make a difference; as long as it is close to very equal.
[5] For example, if the average Free Will is 10% strong in the decision factor (and will therefore only be applicable to cases of 60-40%), then if one makes a strong Free Will decision triple as strong as the average, that would equal 30% powerful in the decision factor and will therefore overpower an 80-20% natural inclination.
Let’s bring a parable, similar to the one we are about to bring in the body-text, to explain this deep concept. There are two pro-wrestlers wrestling each other. However, in this specific case one of the wrestlers is slightly stronger. In order for the weaker one to claim victory, he will need to try harder and put in more effort than his stronger counterpart. Even though most cases of such (with a stronger and weaker wrestlers), the stronger will win, in some cases the weaker one will put in more effort and will overpower his challenger. This is the equivalent to a challenge we have in our life to choose from good and bad. Our natural inclinations incline us to both sides, but one side is slightly stronger, say. Chances are that specific side will win. Yet it is possible for the “weaker” side to win if it puts in more effort, i.e. if the Free Will is used strongly in its favor.
So let’s assume that Free Will is usually 10% strong in the decision maker and will therefore only overpower anything that is 41%—59% in favor against what the Free Will chose. Of course we have no idea of knowing the real numbers, but this is just an example for discussion’s sake. But if the Free Will power is used extra (say, 20% powerful—equivalent to the weaker wrestler who puts in more effort), then the Free Will can even overpower a 39%—69% inclination battle.
[6] Note that it is only considered small and weak in the context of how much it affects us in our decisions. In every other way it is the exact opposite of small and weak.
[7] Even people who actively do evil, they tend to justify their actions as “good.” For example, the evil Nazis during the second World War would justify their mass extermination of the Jews as being beneficial for society, for the perverted reasons Hitler expressed in his infamous mein kampf.
[8] A practical tip, if I may recommend, is not to think about this concept of Free Will during the time of a decision or during a challenge in Mitzvos. During those moments it would be wise to imagine that you have full Free Will without any inclinations etc. This would empower you to make an objective decision without “just letting my pre-determined program to control me” which would ultimately result in you do nothing. Part of a healthy pre-determined program is to imagine at the time that you have full Free Will. After all, there is a reason why Free Will encloths itself in rationalizations, as discussed earlier. If you don’t, then your very pre-determinism will turn you into an idle couch-potato simply “relying” on your “pre-programed software” installed within you. [Yes, this piece of advice itself is also part of the program that God implemented to incline you to make, indeed, a pre-determined decision etc.]
[9] In Jewish Law, one is liable for their actions until the age of 12 for girls and 13 for boys. This is because they are intellectually incompetent to be responsible for their actions and in this regard they are akin to animals who act on instinct.
[i] See Likutei Sichos 35 page 246,
[ii] Likutei Sichos Vol. 16 page 574. The same reason that tells us there is Free Will for the Jew (this that he has a command) will apply to the gentile as well who also has some commandments. When Chassidus says in some places that Gentiles do not have Free Will it is speaking relatively to the amount and possibilities that the Jew has Free Will (because the Gentile has less commandments).
[iii] Likutei Torah on Parshas Emor, Maamor D”H Kevod Malchusecha 5660 (Rebbe Rashab)
[iv] See Likutei Sichos Ch. 6 page 113 footnote 47.
[v] Genesis 1:27, 5:1, 9:6.
[vi] Cf Tanya Ch. 1 & 2.
[vii] Berachos 33b.
[viii] See Likutei Sichos Vol. 16 page 574 with earlier Chassidic sources brought there. That is why Chasiddus says that the power of Free Will is rooted in the infinite essence of the Lord (ibid). That is also why Chasiddus tells us that Free Will only applies to Mitzvos (or any good act) and isn’t applicable by mundane decisions not relating to the service of the Lord (see Sefer HaSichos 5749 Vol. 2 page 537).
I think we have free will. Maimonides wrote: “Humans are given free will. If a person wants to take the good path and be righteous, he is free to do so; and if he desires to take the evil one and be wicked, he can do so … The Creator doesn’t preordain man to be good or evil” (Mishneh Torah, teshuvah 5:1–3).
Ralbag felt that G-d does not know the future. Rambam felt that G-d does not cause evil, G-d only does good. He explained that evil is caused by one of three things, either people harm themselves or others, or natural law, which are good for the world generally but may harm certain individuals. For example, a hurricane helps clean the earth but may harm people. This explains why bad things happen to good people. Additionally, I felt you answered this well also. It is possible that G-d knows all but this revelation would not affect our choices, only that G-d knows them beforehand.
Roger Price has an interesting article on free will which I think you will like. He takes the approach that we have free will from a scientific approach. See here: https://www.judaismandscience.com/judaism-neuroscience-and-the-free-will-hypothesis/
Thank you for the essay.