Human freedom is not optional. It is not subject to our volition; rather, it is an inescapable reality imposed upon us – we do not choose to be free. Whether we like it or not, we are free because our existence burdens us with the obligation of having to choose among various possibilities. That is, each conscious human agent has to choose among various possibilities. In this regard, each conscious human agent is necessarily free. Existentially, we are condemned to freedom.

Put differently, freedom is ontological. That is, freedom is not simply an ideal but an ontologically given characteristic. We cannot escape it. We can either exult in this fact or bemoan it. Freedom is variable. We can actualize our freedom and the freedom of others in such a way as either to expand or contract it.

Human beings are perpetually faced with possibilities from among which we can choose, and, at each choice, we actualize at least one of the possibilities available to us while cutting off others in the process. This grasping of only some possibilities rather than others defines us as one kind of self rather than another.

Practically speaking, pragmatically speaking, and morally speaking: people should be held accountable for their beliefs because they have the free will to choose said beliefs and actions.

Practically

The view that human beings do not have free will is at odds with the very premises of our social and judicial systems. Free will, whether it is an illusion or a reality, underlies all human operations and the very fabric of our social life. Even when we get frustrated with digital assistants like Alexa and Siri, we take it out on them as if they really did something wrong, in a way, representing the frame of mind for agency in another.

On a practical level, embracing a belief that free will is nonexistent would have far-reaching consequences. It is hard to imagine how we would manage our personal lives, let alone our relationships with other people, while presupposing that our actions are determined by antecedent causes. If the decisions we make and actions we take were wholly determined by past causes, we could hardly speak of personal responsibility, and if we could not, then moral and legal responsibility would lose all meaning and coherence in our social orders. We cannot sit back and just let our neurons dictate to us what the causal outcome of our decisions will be. The experience of deciding and the social imperative of holding people responsible imply a certain level of freedom, whether or not this freedom is rooted in a metaphysical reality.

From a practical perspective, the accountability for beliefs signifies a cornerstone of societal and legal frameworks. Rooted in personal autonomy and the capacity for rational deliberation, this accountability asserts that our beliefs are not passively received but actively chosen in dialogue with our society and its values. For instance, educational institutions underscore the cultivation of critical thinking as pivotal in shaping informed beliefs and ethical decision-making. To disavow responsibility for beliefs would erode the intellectual integrity and moral agency essential for navigating the complexities of contemporary society.

Pragmatically

Pragmatically, accountability for beliefs necessitates intellectual humility and openness to divergent viewpoints. It demands a willingness to interrogate the foundations of one’s beliefs, acknowledging their potential impact on personal actions and societal dynamics. This ongoing dialogue enriches individual growth and fosters a culture of reasoned discourse essential for societal progress.

Moreover, recognizing accountability underscores the ethical imperative to consider the broader consequences of our convictions. It prompts individuals to navigate moral dilemmas with integrity, fostering a sense of communal responsibility and ethical stewardship. By upholding accountability, we affirm the moral imperative to challenge biases, promote inclusivity, and contribute meaningfully to the ethical fabric of society.

In the event that both society and our criminal justice system were to be rearranged by a non-free will assumption, the psychological and social constraints that currently govern our lives would break down. This would most likely be seen as an open license by many to do as one pleases, thus eliminating personal character traits associated with virtuous personality.

Consider how we address harmful beliefs such as racism or sexism. We challenge individuals to re-evaluate and change these beliefs, emphasizing personal responsibility in shaping one’s worldview. Without the notion of free will, we would view such beliefs as inevitable outcomes of determinism, reducing our efforts to combat harmful ideologies to mere environmental manipulation without addressing the root cause—personal responsibility for belief formation.

Morally

The assumption of free will forms the foundation for ethics. Even if in the end it is proven that ethics is based on a falsity, the construct will not be able to survive without free will. Any kind of moral system will need to take into consideration accountability for beliefs. In effect, a system devoid of any sense of free will would transcend morality into a realm which is neither moral nor immoral but categorically amoral.

The accountability of actions within a person assumes that they have the power to choose. It is even the basis upon which we define moral responsibility and ethical judgment. Without free will, praise and blame, reward and punishment, become meaningless. The very foundation of ethical conduct is based on the idea that one could have believed differently and thus is responsible for the chosen belief.

The negation of free will therefore nullifies the very basis for moral judgment of beliefs. It makes ethical questions about beliefs mere descriptions of thought processes sans any normative importance. Such a society that conducts itself without the recognition of free will would be devoid of the tenets that justify justice and morality, thus making it fundamentally amoral. It therefore means that belief in free will plays a very important role in maintaining a coherent and viable ethical system.

For example, consider beliefs that lead to charitable actions or social reforms. These beliefs are esteemed because they are seen as choices made by individuals after careful reflection and moral consideration. If we view these beliefs as merely the result of deterministic processes, their moral significance diminishes. Similarly, harmful beliefs lose their moral reprehensibility if the believer is seen as having no real choice in adopting them.

Furthermore, moral accountability invites a deeper exploration of the ethical foundations that underpin our beliefs. It challenges us to cultivate virtues of intellectual courage and ethical discernment, fostering a robust moral framework that guides our interactions with others and shapes collective aspirations for justice and human flourishing.

Recognizing responsibility for beliefs is not merely a practical necessity but a profound affirmation of human dignity and agency.

Thus, holding individuals responsible for their beliefs is indispensable for preserving the integrity of our moral lives and the coherence of our social order. It is a call to navigate our existence with greater awareness, fostering a world where justice and truth prevail, and where each belief contributes to the collective pursuit of a more ethical and enlightened humanity.