This paper discusses the following three possibilities concerning the problem of free will versus determinism: (1) No one is free; (2) Some people are more free than others; and (3) Everyone is free.
The concept that no one is free is basically a form of hard determinism, which takes the position that humans lack free will because their decisions are determined.
The idea that some people are more free than others is actually soft determinism, which is the view that humans have free will not as a result of indeterminism, whether or not determinism is true. More simply stated, both determinism and free will are in some way true. This approach is really a compromise and attempts to find a philosophical place for both of the concepts of determinism and free will. To say that both ideas are possible in the same universe is one way of solving the conflict concerning the two notions.
The belief that everyone is free is a form of that humans have free will as a in their choices. In other words, libertarianism, which holds that humans have free will as a consequence of indeterminism in their choices. In other words, determinism is false and free will is true.
All of this goes back to the question: Is mankind really free? It is certainly true that there are moments when we feel we have made a free decision about something. However, how can we know if we were really free to perform a certain act?
According to Edward D'Angelo: "John Hospers states that the soft determinist's conception of freedom and responsibility is inadequate because it defines freedom and responsibility solely in relation to the conscious acts of individuals. Hospers contends that if we were aware of the effect that unconscious motivation had upon our conscious and deliberate acts, we would not consider man to be free or morally responsible. Hospers also feels that the belief that an action is free if it is determined by a man's character is al...