Ethics and religion: Free will and moral responsibility — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Ethics and religion: Free will and moral responsibility explained
Ethics and religion: Free will and moral responsibility covers 3 specification points, including Free will; understanding the difference… and Libertarianism, hard determinism, compatibilism..
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
The conditions of moral responsibility: free will; understanding the difference between right and wrong.
This criterion sets out two conditions commonly required before someone counts as morally responsible for an action. The first is free will: the agent must have been able to act otherwise, or at least must not have been compelled or coerced. The second is understanding the difference between right and wrong: the agent must have been able to recognise that the action was wrong, which is why young children and some people with severe cognitive impairment are often excused. A multiple-choice question may test whether both conditions are needed, or ask you to apply them to a scenario. Read the scenario carefully and check each condition separately: was the person free, and did the person understand? If either is missing, moral responsibility is usually reduced or absent.
The extent of moral responsibility: libertarianism, hard determinism, compatibilism.
This topic asks how far agents are morally responsible given the debate about free will. Libertarianism holds that at least some actions are genuinely free and therefore open to moral praise or blame; it typically denies that every choice is fixed by prior causes. Hard determinism holds that all events, including choices, are causally determined, so genuine free will is an illusion and moral responsibility in the strong sense is undermined. Compatibilism argues that freedom and responsibility are compatible with determinism, redefining freedom as acting on one's own desires without external coercion rather than as exemption from causation. A strong answer distinguishes what each view claims about freedom, about determinism and about the resulting extent of moral responsibility, and applies each to a concrete case such as blaming a person for a harmful act.
The relevance of moral responsibility to reward and punishment.
This topic asks why moral responsibility matters for how we treat people through reward and punishment. If agents are morally responsible for their actions, it is commonly argued that praise, blame, reward and punishment can be deserved, because the agent could have acted otherwise or was genuinely the source of the action. Retributive punishment rests on desert: the offender deserves to suffer because they are responsible. Consequentialist justifications, such as deterrence, reform and protection of society, focus on future benefits and may operate even where responsibility is limited. If hard determinism is true, desert-based punishment is hard to justify, though forward-looking responses might remain.
Your focus
- Identify the two conditions of moral responsibility.
- Apply the conditions of free will and understanding to a given scenario.
- Explain why failing either condition reduces moral responsibility.
Show all 9 objectives
- Explain what libertarianism, hard determinism and compatibilism each claim about freedom.
- Compare the extent of moral responsibility each position allows.
- Apply the positions to a concrete case of praise or blame.
- Explain how moral responsibility is used to justify reward and punishment.
- Distinguish retributive from consequentialist justifications.
- Assess whether determinism undermines desert-based punishment.
Ethics and religion: Free will and moral responsibility exam tips
Marking Points
- States that free will is a condition of moral responsibility, meaning the agent could have acted otherwise or was not compelled.
- States that understanding the difference between right and wrong is a condition, meaning the agent could recognise the action as wrong.
- Applies both conditions to a scenario and identifies whether each is satisfied.
- Concludes that responsibility is reduced or absent when either condition fails.
- Identifies libertarianism as the view that some actions are genuinely free and so attract moral responsibility.
- Explains hard determinism as holding that universal causal determination rules out free will and undermines strong moral responsibility.
- Describes compatibilism as reconciling determinism with a redefined freedom, such as acting on one's own desires without coercion.
- Distinguishes the three positions by what each says about the extent of moral responsibility rather than only about freedom.
- Applies a position to a concrete case, such as whether a person is blameworthy for a harmful act.
- Explains why moral responsibility is taken to ground desert-based reward and punishment.
- Distinguishes retributive justifications, which rest on desert, from consequentialist justifications such as deterrence and reform.
- Assesses whether hard determinism undermines desert-based punishment while leaving forward-looking responses possible.
- Connects a specific view of moral responsibility to a justification of reward or punishment.
- Applies the argument to a concrete case, such as whether an offender deserves punishment.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Read the stem twice and underline any words about choice, pressure or knowledge.
- 💡Test each condition separately before choosing an option.
- 💡Eliminate options that satisfy only one condition when the question asks about both.
- 💡Define each of the three positions precisely before comparing them.
- 💡State explicitly what each view claims about the extent of moral responsibility, not only about freedom.
- 💡Use one concrete example to show how the positions differ in practice.
- 💡State clearly which view of moral responsibility you are assuming before drawing conclusions about punishment.
- 💡Separate retributive from consequentialist justifications and assess each.
- 💡Use a concrete case to test whether the link between responsibility and desert holds.
Common Mistakes
- Assumes freedom alone is sufficient; check that understanding of right and wrong is also present.
- Treats determinism as automatically removing all responsibility without considering compatibilist replies; note the position being tested.
- Ignores the scenario details and answers from general knowledge; apply each condition to the facts given.
- Treats compatibilism as simply denying determinism; correct this by explaining that compatibilism accepts determinism while redefining freedom.
- Assumes hard determinism denies all responsibility in every sense; correct this by noting it denies strong free-will-based responsibility while allowing practical or social responses.
- Confuses libertarianism with political liberty; correct this by defining it as a metaphysical view about free will and moral responsibility.
- Assumes punishment always requires full moral responsibility; correct this by distinguishing desert-based from consequentialist justifications.
- Treats reward and punishment as identical in justification; correct this by examining how desert and consequences apply differently to each.
- Ignores the compatibilist option; correct this by showing how a redefined freedom could still support responsibility and desert.