Key Idea: Topic 1.6 asks the question underneath every choice: are you really free, or does it only feel that way? Freedom is one of the strongest issues to reach for in Paper 1 Section A, the 25-mark essay on what it is to be human. This whole topic feeds it.
🧠 The six big questions, one card each
Topic 1.6 at a glance
- 1.6.1 · Free will — do we really choose? — You have free will when, at the moment of choosing, you could GENUINELY have done otherwise. It's tied to moral responsibility: if no one could ever have done otherwise, blame and praise need rethinking.
- 1.6.2 · Determinism — Every event has a cause; choices are events; so choices are fully caused (the domino argument). The hard determinist bites the bullet: free will is an illusion and no one is truly to blame.
- 1.6.3 · Compatibilism — Maybe 'free' never meant 'uncaused'. Dennett: you're free when you act on your OWN desires, unforced — even if those desires were caused. Van Inwagen: that's a cheat; if the past fixes everything, you control none of it.
- 1.6.4 · Social conditioning — A threat that isn't physics: people and institutions shape what you WANT, so choices feel free while running on tracks others laid. Socialization equips you; conditioning chooses for you. Freedom comes in degrees — the danger is shaping you can't see.
- 1.6.5 · Authenticity — Not 'are you free?' but 'are you USING your freedom?' Bad faith (Sartre): pretending you have no choice, like the waiter 'just doing his job'. Authenticity is consciously owning a choice as yours.
- 1.6.6 · Existential freedom — Sartre: no fixed nature is handed to you, so you're 'condemned to be free' — every excuse is bad faith. Angst is the dread of that total responsibility. Epictetus: you can't control events, only your response — real freedom is inner.
The whole topic turns on what 'free' means. The determinist assumes free = uncaused (you could have done otherwise even with the same past). The compatibilist says free just means unforced (you acted on your own desires, whatever caused them). Spot which meaning a thinker is using and the debate suddenly makes sense.
✍️ Bring it together — a Section A question
Stimulus — At sentencing, a lawyer pleads: "My client's whole life — his childhood, his neighbourhood, every hardship — pushed him to this exact moment. Given all that, could he really have done anything else? And if not, how can we call it his fault?" With explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, explore a philosophical issue related to what it is to be human.
🔒 Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Describing views instead of arguing them. Don't just say 'the determinist thinks X, Dennett thinks Y.' Give each view a reason, test it with an objection, then decide. A name earns nothing without its argument — and a top answer always reaches a reasoned conclusion, never 'it's just opinion'.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
What is free will? The genuine power to choose between real options — at the moment of choosing, you could truly have done otherwise.
The domino argument for determinism? Choices are events; events are fully caused; so choices are fully caused — given the past, only one 'choice' was ever possible.
Dennett's compatibilism? You're free when you act on your OWN desires without being forced — 'free' means unforced, not uncaused, so it survives determinism.
Van Inwagen's objection? If determinism is true, the past plus the laws fix everything and you control none of it — so compatibilist 'freedom' is a cheat.
Bad faith (Sartre)? Lying to yourself that you have no choice, to dodge responsibility — like the waiter who becomes a robot 'just doing his job'.
Epictetus on real freedom? You can't control outer events, only your responses to them — so true freedom is inner, in mastering your own reactions.
Exam Tips
- Section A is a 25-mark essay on the core theme — freedom is a strong issue, and this whole topic feeds it.
- Turn the stimulus into a question about free will and responsibility, then explore → evaluate → conclude.
- Name a thinker ONLY with their argument — a name on its own earns no marks.
- Always weigh at least two views and end on a reasoned conclusion, not a list.