It's relatively common today to hear people say we have no free will. The most well known determinist I know —i.e., someone who believes that all actions are caused in a way that leaves no room for free will — is Robert Sapolsky. When you read his work and listen to him talk about free will, it’s clear that he genuinely believes we have no free will. And I’ll be honest, I’m sympathetic to his work because of the earnestness with which he discusses it, but also because he believes that determinism should make us more compassionate human beings, than less. I’m also sympathetic to his view because there is a grain of truth in it. In our daily lives, there are so many forces acting on us (structural, cultural, social) that there is a case to be made that a lot of our actions are far more influenced than we might believe — and some border on unfree. However, on the question of whether there is freedom generally — that is, independent of particularly hard cases, and independently of how we should structure our societies norms around responsibility - I think there is. First, I think we should systematically distinguish between two questions (1) is there free will in the world? (the metaphysical question of whether we are free or unfree). The answer to this I think is yes. The fundamental capacity to choose otherwise exists as a capability in all human beings. (2) was such and such a person under such and such circumstances able to make use of their capacity for free will? The answer to this question will vary by context, circumstance, and other such factors. And it’s not a scientific or metaphysical question. For want of a better word, it’s a practical one. Why separate these questions? Because they require different tools, different conceptual lenses and different outlooks. To answer (1) we’re going to read the science, judge the conclusions drawn from the experiments, see if these experiments draw good conclusions etc To answer (2) we need to look at completely...