s a thinker than William
James starts from the same misguided assumption. And yet nothing can be
more certainly clear than that if man as a matter of fact has no
"free-will" it is the very height of absurdity to maintain that man's
morality necessarily depends upon his having "free-will." Something man
does not possess cannot be made any condition, let alone _the_
indispensable condition of his being able to live a moral life. Man's
morality must be based upon his nature; and what his nature is cannot be
antecedently determined in accordance with the demands of any special
moral theory. Moral theory must be based upon man's nature; not man's
nature upon moral theory.

Far from "free-will" being a necessary foundation of morality
"free-will" would make all morality, of the kind we know and the
"free-will"-ists want, absolutely impossible. The central condition of
moral life is responsibility. So central is it, that it is now
acknowledged as such in all the penal codes of civilized countries. But
if man has, instead of a determinate nature, "free-will", responsibility
can in no way be fixed. Education, too, is necessarily impossible. Hence
all punishment would have to be retributive. Moral strife, as well as
legal penalties, would bear all the stigmata of unmitigated, imbecilic
cruelty. This is not the case however if man has an absolutely
determinate nature. Education is possible. And therefore although crime
loses none of its evil character, punishment can lose all of its inhuman
sting. The necessary condition of human morality is responsibility not
irresponsibility; reliability not unreliability; certainty not
uncertainty; a firm will, not a "free" will.

"Free-will" is necessary only in theological apologetics. According to
Christian theology, if man did not have "free-will" it would follow that
God is the Author of all the evil of the world. Something which is not
quite in keeping with His perfect goodness. By a queer twist of mind,
theologians therefore gave man, and not God (as they should have done)
"free-will." But they gave man "free-will" not to enable him to live
virtuously, but to enable him to sin. If man were able to live
virtuously as well as sinfully of his own "free-will" he would then be
altogether independent of God, which can in no way be admitted or
allowed. Hence the bitter and heart-rending cries of orthodox,
especially evangelical ministers that if left to themselves they can
only sin! They can