Free Will & Moral Responsibility — I can explain arguments for and against free will and how they connect to moral responsibility. - Philosophy

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The question of whether human beings possess free will — the capacity to have acted otherwise than one did — is among the oldest and most enduring puzzles in philosophy. Ancient Greek tragedians wrestled with the tension between fate and personal agency, and the debate has never truly subsided. What makes the question so persistent is that it sits at the intersection of metaphysics, ethics, theology, and now cognitive science: every generation discovers new reasons to revisit it. For students in the social sciences, the stakes are concrete. Criminal justice systems presuppose that offenders could have chosen differently; political theory assumes citizens are rational agents; psychology asks how much of behavior is determined by forces beyond conscious control. Understanding the free-will debate therefore illuminates foundational assumptions across your entire field of study.

~350 BCE • Aristotle on Voluntary Action

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes voluntary from involuntary action, arguing that praise and blame apply only when an agent acts from an internal principle with knowledge of the circumstances — an early framework for linking freedom to moral responsibility.

~400 CE • Augustine and the Problem of Evil

Augustine of Hippo defends free will as God's gift, arguing that moral evil arises from humanity's misuse of freedom rather than from divine causation. This theological framing dominated Western thought for a millennium and shaped debates about sin, punishment, and grace.

1739 • Hume's Compatibilism

David Hume argues in the Treatise of Human Nature that freedom is not the absence of causation but the absence of external constraint. By redefining 'liberty' as acting according to one's desires without compulsion, Hume pioneers the compatibilist tradition.

1781 • Kant's Third Antinomy

Immanuel Kant frames the conflict as an antinomy of pure reason: the natural world appears fully determined by causal law, yet morality requires that we treat rational agents as free. Kant resolves this by locating freedom in the noumenal self, beyond empirical investigation.

1983–Present • Neuroscience Enters the Debate

Benjamin Libet's experiments reveal brain activity (the 'readiness potential') occurring hundreds of milliseconds before subjects report a conscious intention to act, sparking a wave of empirical challenges to the folk concept of free will and inspiring ongoing interdisciplinary research.

Across these centuries, one question has remained stubbornly unresolved: if every event — including every neural firing in your brain — is the inevitable consequence of prior causes, can anyone truly be said to act freely? And if not, does the entire edifice of moral responsibility collapse? These are the questions this lesson unpacks, mapping the major positions and evaluating how each handles the connection between agency and accountability.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Before evaluating arguments, we need a shared vocabulary. The free-will debate revolves around several interlocking concepts, each of which has been refined by centuries of philosophical work. Getting these definitions right is essential because much of the apparent disagreement between positions turns out to be terminological: philosophers who seem to contradict each other may simply be using 'free will' in different senses.

Determinism

The thesis that every event, including every human decision, is necessitated by prior causes together with the laws of nature. Given a complete description of the universe at one moment, only one future is physically possible. Determinism does not mean fatalism; it allows that your desires and deliberation are part of the causal chain, not that they are irrelevant.

Libertarian Free Will

Not to be confused with the political ideology, libertarianism in metaphysics holds that at least some human actions are not determined by prior causes. Agents possess a genuine power to do otherwise, making them ultimate originators of their choices. Variants include agent-causation theory (Chisholm) and event-causal indeterminism (Kane).

Compatibilism

The view that free will is compatible with determinism. What matters is not whether your action was caused, but whether it was caused in the right way — by your own desires, values, and rational capacities rather than by external compulsion or internal dysfunction. Key figures include Hume, Frankfurt, and Fischer & Ravizza.

Hard Determinism

Accepts determinism and infers that free will is an illusion. Because every choice was inevitable given prior causes, no one truly 'could have done otherwise,' and therefore traditional notions of moral responsibility are unjustified. Hard determinists like Derk Pereboom advocate replacing blame with forward-looking responses to wrongdoing.

Moral Responsibility

The condition under which an agent is an appropriate target of praise or blame for their actions. Most accounts tie responsibility to some combination of control (the agent directed the action), epistemic access (the agent knew what they were doing), and rationality (the agent could respond to reasons). The debate over free will is, at bottom, a debate about what kind of control is necessary for this status.

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of the free-will debate as a dispute about the meaning of 'could have done otherwise.' Imagine a river flowing downhill: a hard determinist says the water had to follow that path and thus cannot be 'blamed' for flooding a town. A libertarian says the river metaphor is misleading because humans, unlike water, can redirect themselves against the causal current. A compatibilist says the river is free when it flows according to its own natural course, and only unfree when a dam forces it somewhere it would not otherwise go. Which sense of 'free' you adopt determines your entire theory of moral responsibility.

SECTION 3

The Logical Landscape of Free Will

The diagram below maps the logical relationships among the major positions. The debate's structure is essentially a decision tree: your answer to the question 'Is determinism true?' intersects with your answer to 'Is free will compatible with determinism?' to generate four possible positions. Understanding this architecture prevents the common mistake of conflating positions that share premises but reach different conclusions.

The decision tree shows how two binary questions — 'Is determinism true?' and 'Is free will compatible with determinism?' — generate four logically distinct positions. Note that compatibilism and libertarianism both affirm free will but for very different reasons, while hard determinism and hard incompatibilism both deny it but start from different premises about whether the universe is deterministic.

A crucial insight the diagram reveals is that the debate is not simply 'for' versus 'against' free will. Rather, it is a two-dimensional space defined by orthogonal questions. Compatibilists and hard determinists can agree entirely on the physics — both accept that the universe is deterministic — yet reach opposite conclusions about whether anyone is ever morally responsible. This means that the philosophical work is not primarily about discovering new empirical facts; it is about analyzing what 'free' and 'responsible' actually require.

SECTION 4

How the Arguments Work

The Consequence Argument (Against Compatibilism)

The most influential argument against compatibilism is Peter van Inwagen's Consequence Argument (1983). It can be stated semi-formally. If determinism is true, then the state of the universe at any earlier time, together with the laws of nature, entails every subsequent event — including your present action. You have no power over the laws of nature, and you have no power over events that occurred before you were born. Therefore, by a transfer principle (if you have no power over P, and P entails Q, then you have no power over Q), you have no power over your present action. If you have no power over your action, you could not have done otherwise, and traditional moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise. Compatibilists must either reject the transfer principle, redefine 'could have done otherwise,' or deny that moral responsibility requires alternative possibilities.

ℹ

Formal Structure of the Consequence Argument

Let P₀ = the state of the universe at some time before any living agent existed. Let L = the conjunction of all laws of nature. Let A = any action performed by any agent at any time. Premise 1: If determinism is true, then P₀ & L entails A. Premise 2: No agent has (or ever had) any choice about P₀. Premise 3: No agent has any choice about L. Transfer Principle (β): If no agent has a choice about X, and X entails Y, then no agent has a choice about Y. Conclusion: No agent has any choice about A. Therefore free will (understood as the ability to do otherwise) does not exist.

Frankfurt Cases (For Compatibilism)

Harry Frankfurt's celebrated thought experiment (1969) attacks the premise that moral responsibility requires alternative possibilities. Imagine that Jones decides, entirely on his own, to vote for Candidate A. Unbeknownst to Jones, a neuroscientist named Black has implanted a device in Jones's brain. If Jones had begun to form the intention to vote for Candidate B, Black's device would have intervened and caused Jones to vote for A anyway. As it happens, Jones votes for A on his own, and the device never activates. Frankfurt's intuition pump: Jones seems morally responsible for voting for A — he acted from his own reasons, reflectively endorsed his choice, and would have done the same even without the device. Yet Jones could not have done otherwise (Black's device guaranteed the outcome). If that intuition is correct, then the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is false, and the Consequence Argument loses its force: even if determinism eliminates alternative possibilities, it does not follow that no one is morally responsible.

The Luck Objection (Against Libertarianism)

Libertarians face their own formidable challenge. If an action is undetermined — if the agent genuinely could have done otherwise given the identical prior conditions — then the occurrence of one action rather than another appears to be a matter of luck or chance. But actions that result from mere chance do not seem to be under the agent's control in the way required for responsibility. This is sometimes called the luck objection or the problem of enhanced control. Robert Kane responds by locating indeterminacy in moments of 'self-forming actions' — torn decisions where the agent's competing motivations create genuine indeterminacy in neural processing, so whichever way the decision goes, it reflects the agent's character. Critics retort that this merely relocates the luck problem without solving it.

SECTION 5

Detailed Breakdown of Major Positions

The spectrum below provides a spatial metaphor for how the major positions relate to one another. On the far left, hard determinism denies both free will and traditional moral responsibility. Moving rightward, compatibilism accepts determinism but recovers a robust notion of freedom and responsibility. Libertarianism rejects determinism outright, and hard incompatibilism (whether or not the universe is deterministic) denies that moral responsibility of the 'basic-desert' kind is ever justified.

Spectrum of Free-Will Positions

No Free Will No Free Will (regardless of determinism)

Spinoza (12%)Hume / Frankfurt (38%)Kane / Chisholm (62%)Pereboom / G. Strawson (88%)

This diagram contrasts how each major position conceptualizes moral responsibility's connection to agency. All three positions converge on a shared central question about whether the type of control the agent has is sufficient, but they diverge dramatically in their answers, producing fundamentally different visions of justice and accountability.

Notice the practical implications that flow from each position. A hard determinist society might structure its criminal justice system entirely around rehabilitation and public safety, with no retributive component, because no offender 'deserves' punishment in the strong, backward-looking sense. A libertarian society, by contrast, could embrace full-throated retributivism, confident that offenders genuinely chose their crimes when they could have done otherwise. Compatibilism occupies a middle position that most legal systems implicitly endorse: responsibility tracks not some metaphysical power of ultimate origination, but whether the agent acted from reasons they endorsed, was responsive to moral considerations, and was not coerced, manipulated, or suffering from a serious psychological impairment.

SECTION 6

Worked Example: Analyzing a Case Through Multiple Lenses

Consider the following scenario, adapted from a standard criminal-law hypothetical. Maya grows up in an environment of extreme poverty and violence. At age 19, she robs a convenience store at gunpoint. She later tells a court-appointed psychologist that she felt she had 'no real choice' — but she also admits that she deliberated about the plan for several days, weighed the risks, and chose a time when she believed the store would have the most cash and fewest customers. How would each major position evaluate Maya's moral responsibility?

Philosophical Case Analysis: Maya's Robbery

1
Step 1 — Identify the Relevant Facts

The case presents two sets of facts in tension. On one hand, Maya's upbringing — extreme poverty and violence — constitutes a powerful set of causal factors that shaped her character and dispositions. On the other hand, Maya engaged in deliberation: she planned, weighed risks, and timed her action strategically. These facts will be evaluated differently depending on which philosophical framework we apply.

Key tension: strong causal antecedents vs. evidence of rational deliberation.
2
Step 2 — Hard Determinist Analysis

A hard determinist like Derk Pereboom would argue that Maya's deliberation was itself determined by prior causes — her neural wiring, her socialization, her immediate circumstances. Even though she experienced a phenomenology of choice, every aspect of that experience was the inevitable product of factors she did not choose. She could not have done otherwise in any robust sense. Therefore, Maya does not deserve blame in the basic-desert sense. However, society may still justifiably incapacitate or rehabilitate her to prevent future harm — not as punishment, but as a public-health measure analogous to quarantining someone with a contagious disease.

Verdict: Not morally responsible. Appropriate response: rehabilitation, not retribution.
3
Step 3 — Compatibilist Analysis

A compatibilist like John Martin Fischer would focus on whether Maya's action issued from a reasons-responsive mechanism. Maya deliberated, weighed consequences, and adjusted her plan — evidence that she was responsive to reasons. She was not acting under direct coercion (no one held a gun to her head), nor was she suffering from a severe mental illness that would undermine her capacity for rational agency. Her difficult upbringing is morally relevant — it may mitigate the degree of blame — but it does not eliminate responsibility unless it rises to the level of a responsibility-undermining condition (e.g., brainwashing, psychotic break). Compatibilists would likely hold Maya responsible, though perhaps with diminished blame given her circumstances.

Verdict: Morally responsible (possibly with mitigated blame). She acted from a reasons-responsive mechanism.
4
Step 4 — Libertarian Analysis

A libertarian like Robert Kane would ask whether Maya's decision was a self-forming action — a torn decision in which competing motivations (the desire for money versus moral qualms about armed robbery) created genuine indeterminacy in her deliberation. If so, then whichever way she decided, the choice would express her character and make her the ultimate author of her action. She is fully responsible because she was the uncaused cause of the decisive moment. The environmental factors are causally relevant but do not determine the outcome; they set the stage without writing the script.

Verdict: Fully morally responsible. She was the ultimate originator of her choice.
5
Step 5 — Evaluate and Compare

Each analysis is internally consistent but yields different practical recommendations. The hard determinist challenges us to rethink retributive justice entirely; the compatibilist preserves most of our ordinary responsibility practices while making room for mitigating circumstances; the libertarian vindicates the common-sense intuition that Maya 'knew what she was doing' and bears full accountability. The choice among these frameworks is not simply an empirical question — it depends on conceptual decisions about what 'could have done otherwise' means, whether alternative possibilities are required for responsibility, and whether reactive attitudes like resentment and gratitude are rationally grounded or merely psychologically ingrained.

The same facts support different responsibility verdicts depending on one's metaphysical commitments about the nature of agency and control.

SECTION 7

Strengths & Limitations of Each Position

No position in the free-will debate is without significant objections. The following table summarizes the principal strengths and vulnerabilities of each major view, providing a framework for comparative evaluation.

Position	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
Hard Determinism	Consistent with physical science; eliminates retributive excess; promotes compassion and rehabilitation; avoids 'moral luck' problems by denying desert entirely.	Undermines reactive attitudes (gratitude, resentment, love) that structure social life; may erode personal motivation and moral seriousness; difficult to reconcile with the phenomenology of deliberation.
Compatibilism	Preserves ordinary moral practices; consistent with determinism and neuroscience; offers nuanced criteria (reasons-responsiveness, mesh theories) for distinguishing responsible from non-responsible agents.	Accused of redefining 'free will' in a way that dodges the real question (the 'wretched subterfuge' objection from Kant); vulnerable to manipulation arguments (e.g., agents who are reasons-responsive only because they were brainwashed to be).
Libertarianism	Vindicates the common-sense intuition of genuine choice; preserves robust moral responsibility and retributive justice; aligns with the phenomenology of deliberation and effort.	Faces the luck objection (indeterminacy ≠ control); agent causation is metaphysically obscure; quantum indeterminacy may not operate at the neural scale relevant to decision-making.
Hard Incompatibilism	Avoids the weaknesses of both determinism and libertarianism; agnostic about physics; argues for forward-looking justice regardless of metaphysical truth.	Shares hard determinism's challenge to reactive attitudes; may be psychologically unsustainable; critics argue it conflates 'basic desert' with all forms of responsibility.

Comparative evaluation of the four major positions on free will

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of the free-will debate as analogous to a courtroom in which the concept of moral responsibility is on trial. The hard determinist is the defense attorney arguing for full acquittal: the defendant (responsibility) never had a legitimate basis for existing. The compatibilist is the judge who allows a modified verdict: the defendant stands, but under revised terms. The libertarian is the prosecutor insisting on the original charges in full. And the hard incompatibilist files a motion to dismiss the case entirely, arguing that the court (our moral framework) lacks jurisdiction no matter what the facts turn out to be. Each position is a coherent legal strategy, and none has yet won a definitive verdict.

SECTION 8

Connections to Advanced Theory & Contemporary Research

The free-will debate does not exist in a philosophical vacuum. Over the past several decades, it has become deeply intertwined with empirical research in neuroscience, psychology, and the social sciences. Understanding these connections is essential for any student who plans to apply philosophical frameworks to real-world policy or research.

Classical Philosophical Concept	Contemporary Empirical / Theoretical Extension
Could have done otherwise (Principle of Alternative Possibilities)	Libet experiments (1983) and Haynes et al. (2008): brain imaging reveals unconscious neural preparation preceding conscious intention by hundreds of milliseconds, challenging the folk intuition that conscious will initiates action.
Reasons-responsiveness (compatibilist criterion)	Research on implicit bias, ego depletion, and situationist psychology (Milgram, Zimbardo): people's behavior is more sensitive to situational factors than to stable character traits, potentially undermining the claim that agents reliably respond to moral reasons.
Reactive attitudes (P.F. Strawson)	Experimental philosophy (x-phi): studies by Nichols & Knobe (2007) show that laypeople's free-will intuitions shift depending on whether a scenario is described abstractly or with vivid emotional detail, raising questions about whether folk intuitions are a reliable guide to moral truth.
Retributive justice requires desert	Behavioral genetics and epigenetics: growing evidence that antisocial behavior correlates with genetic variants (e.g., MAOA) and early-childhood adversity, fueling debates about diminished responsibility and 'neuro-law' defenses in criminal courts.
Agent causation (libertarian)	Quantum-mind hypotheses (Penrose & Hameroff): speculative proposals that quantum indeterminacy in neural microtubules could provide the physical basis for libertarian free will, though most neuroscientists regard these claims as empirically unsupported.

Classical concepts and their contemporary empirical counterparts

Looking ahead, the most active research frontiers include revisionism (Manuel Vargas's view that we should reform rather than describe our responsibility practices), semicompatibilism (Fischer's view that responsibility is compatible with determinism even if 'the ability to do otherwise' is not), and quality-of-will approaches that ground responsibility not in metaphysical freedom but in the attitudes (good will, ill will, indifference) expressed by an agent's conduct. These developments suggest that the debate is moving away from the binary question 'Do we have free will?' toward the more productive question 'What kind of agency and self-governance justifies holding people accountable?' — a question that intersects directly with public policy, institutional design, and social-scientific methodology.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

Explain the difference between determinism and fatalism. Why is this distinction important for the free-will debate?

Show answer

Determinism holds that every event is necessitated by prior causes and the laws of nature, but it acknowledges that the agent's own desires, beliefs, and deliberation are part of the causal chain. Fatalism, by contrast, holds that outcomes are fixed regardless of what the agent does — deliberation is pointless because the future is set independently of anyone's choices. The distinction matters because the strongest arguments against free will rely on determinism, not fatalism. A compatibilist can accept determinism while insisting that agents' mental states causally contribute to outcomes, thereby preserving a meaningful sense of agency. Confusing determinism with fatalism makes it seem as though the determinist position entails that our choices 'don't matter,' which is not what determinists claim.

Question 2: BASIC APPLICATION

Reconstruct the Consequence Argument in your own words using three premises and a conclusion. Identify the transfer principle and state one way a compatibilist might challenge it.

Show answer

Premise 1: If determinism is true, the complete state of the universe before I was born, together with the laws of nature, logically entails everything I ever do. Premise 2: I have no power over events that occurred before my birth. Premise 3: I have no power over the laws of nature. Transfer Principle (β): If I have no power over X, and X entails Y, then I have no power over Y. Conclusion: I have no power over anything I do, so I cannot do otherwise, and I lack free will. A compatibilist might challenge the transfer principle by arguing that 'having no power over X' and 'X entails Y' do not always jointly imply 'having no power over Y.' For instance, I have no power over the fact that (if I chose to raise my arm, my arm would rise), and this fact plus determinism entails that my arm rises — but it seems wrong to say I have 'no power' over my arm rising, since the conditional dependence on my choice is precisely what constitutes my power.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

Construct a Frankfurt-style counterexample involving a student deciding whether to cheat on an exam. Include an intervener who ensures a particular outcome, and explain what the case is supposed to show about the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP).

Show answer

Suppose Alex is deciding whether to cheat on a final exam. Unbeknownst to Alex, Professor Green has implanted a neural device that monitors Alex's brain activity. If the device detects that Alex is beginning to form the intention to answer honestly, it will activate and cause Alex to cheat instead. As it happens, Alex decides on his own to cheat — the device never activates. Frankfurt's point: Alex seems morally blameworthy for cheating. He deliberated, chose to cheat based on his own reasons (perhaps laziness or desperation), and acted from his own will. Yet Alex could not have done otherwise — had he begun to decide to be honest, the device would have forced him to cheat anyway. If we accept that Alex is responsible despite the absence of alternative possibilities, then PAP is false. This undermines the Consequence Argument, which depends on the claim that responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise. The case shows that what matters for responsibility may be the actual causal history of the action (that it flowed from the agent's own decision-making), not whether alternative paths were available.

Question 4: APPLIED

A defense attorney argues in court that her client should receive a reduced sentence because neuroscientific evidence shows reduced activity in the client's prefrontal cortex, the brain region associated with impulse control. Drawing on at least two positions from the free-will debate, evaluate this argument. What should the judge consider?

Show answer

From a hard determinist perspective, the neuroscientific evidence simply makes explicit what is true of all defendants: their behavior was the product of prior neural causes over which they had no ultimate control. The attorney's argument is valid in principle, but it applies to everyone, not just this defendant — which means it calls into question retributive justice as a whole, not merely this individual's sentence. A hard determinist might advocate replacing sentencing with rehabilitation-focused interventions. From a compatibilist perspective, the relevant question is whether the reduced prefrontal activity constitutes a responsibility-undermining condition. If the impairment was severe enough to prevent the defendant from being responsive to moral reasons — if, for example, the defendant truly could not inhibit the criminal impulse even when presented with strong reasons not to act — then diminished responsibility may be appropriate. However, mere statistical correlation between brain structure and behavior does not automatically exculpate; many people with reduced prefrontal activity do not commit crimes, which suggests that the mechanism is not fully determining. The judge should consider whether the impairment meets the legal threshold for diminished capacity, whether the defendant showed any evidence of reasons-responsiveness (e.g., planning, awareness of wrongfulness), and what combination of punishment, treatment, and incapacitation best serves justice and public safety.

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

Galen Strawson's Basic Argument contends that no one can be truly morally responsible for anything, regardless of whether determinism is true. The argument runs: (1) You act based on your character and motivations. (2) To be truly responsible, you must have formed your own character. (3) To form your character, you must have already had a prior character that guided that formation. (4) This leads to an infinite regress. (5) Therefore, no one is the ultimate source of their character, and ultimate moral responsibility is impossible. Evaluate this argument. Is the infinite regress genuinely vicious? Could a compatibilist or libertarian escape it?

Show answer

Strawson's Basic Argument is powerful because it targets free will regardless of determinism — even if indeterminism is true, the agent did not choose the initial character from which the indeterminate act arose. However, the regress is arguably not vicious if we reject the premise that responsibility requires 'ultimate' self-creation. A compatibilist like Fischer would argue that responsibility does not require being the ultimate source of one's character; it requires only that one's present character operates through a reasons-responsive mechanism. We hold people responsible for who they are now, as shaped by endorsable processes of reflection and self-revision, not for the metaphysical origins of their earliest dispositions. A libertarian like Kane could argue that certain pivotal 'self-forming actions' break the regress at specific junctures: at moments of torn decision, the agent's character is genuinely up for grabs, and whichever direction it goes reflects the agent's effort and engagement, making the agent at least a partial self-creator without needing to be a self-creator 'all the way down.' Whether these responses succeed depends on whether one accepts a non-ultimate notion of responsibility as genuinely satisfying, or whether one insists, with Strawson, that anything less than ultimate origination is a mere consolation prize. This is one of the deepest unresolved tensions in the entire debate.

SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

Summary

The free-will debate turns on two intersecting questions: whether determinism is true (every event necessitated by prior causes and natural law) and whether free will is compatible with determinism. These two binary questions generate four logically distinct positions. Hard determinism accepts determinism and concludes that free will is illusory, undermining traditional moral responsibility. Compatibilism also accepts determinism but redefines freedom as acting from one's own reasons-responsive mechanisms without external compulsion, thereby preserving responsibility. Libertarianism rejects determinism and holds that agents possess genuine alternative possibilities, grounding robust moral accountability. Hard incompatibilism denies that moral responsibility in the basic-desert sense is ever justified, regardless of whether the universe is deterministic.

Key argumentative tools include the Consequence Argument (which challenges compatibilism via a transfer-of-powerlessness principle), Frankfurt cases (which challenge the Principle of Alternative Possibilities), the luck objection (which challenges libertarian indeterminism), and Galen Strawson's Basic Argument (which targets ultimate moral responsibility via an infinite regress). Contemporary research in neuroscience, experimental philosophy, behavioral genetics, and criminal law continues to reshape the debate, moving it toward the question of what kind of agency and self-governance suffices for moral accountability — a question with direct implications for justice systems, social policy, and our understanding of ourselves as social beings.