Humans ‒ the highest form of sentient life, possess a complicated nervous system that allows the brain to formulate a decision and execute it. But there is a time delay between the brain wave and the execution of the decision. Nevertheless, in the constant flow of life, it is hard to ascertain how much of the consequences of our decision is attributable to the evitable or inevitable causes. A serial killer, who has murdered many in the past, gets up in the middle of the night, his psychotic mind ever goading him to kill one more time. He visits his next victim and lands a lethal blow on the victim with no conscience or a sense of guilt. Is this man just a mechanical robot without a free will, or is he a man inherently evil?
A young couple decides to pull the plug on their child’s life support system knowing not for sure whether their gravely ill and comatose child would ever wake up to life. Was their decision borne out of economic necessity, or was it in response to the medical facts presented to them by the attending physicians?
These two examples beg the following questions: Are we responsible for our actions?  Do we make a conscious decision each time we do something? Are the decisions that we make emanate from our own individual selves, or are they bundled up entities reflecting a manifestation of the collective psyche that we are a part of? Are we the ‘decider’ of an action, or has the decision already been made for us and we are just the ‘executor’? Are we in control of our destiny, or has that destiny already been encrypted into our unalterable DNA? Can we truly be held morally culpable for all that we do?
Philosophers have debated these questions since the days of ancient Greece as the conflict between Determinism, which is characterized as “bound by causality in such a way that any state is determined by its prior state,” and Free Will that allows us “the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.”
The concept of determinism got a boost in the late seventeenth century when Newton showed that deterministic laws, based on the metaphysical principle of causality, govern everything that is a part of the all-encompassing universe. This is understood as meaning that our thoughts, decisions, choices and actions were causally determined by facts that were in place from the beginning of the universe.
The precepts of determinism is a dehumanizing philosophy strangely discordant with our everyday experience. They undercut human dignity and undermine our value. We seem diminished; we become the playthings of external forces. Our actions are ‘strictly not our own,’ our freedom is an illusion, goals are irrelevant and aspirations are pointless. We are nothing but component of a colossal cosmic machine grinding along with no uncertainty whatsoever. Consequently, it is hard to take ownership of ourselves when it has been written in stone for ages.
In sharp contrast, free will gives us the option to choose more than one course of action given a definite situation. It has a structuring effect on a society; it offers possibilities of harmonization, and execution of human thoughts and actions.
Although the concept of free will is at loggerheads with the notion of inevitability or predetermination as postulated by determinism, each doctrine offers a formidable and cogent defense of its tenets that is equally appealing. The dissonance between the two doctrines, and the arguments given in their support, is highlighted by the cases of the young couple and the serial killer.
Advocates of determinism would contend that the chain of events from the time the universe began to the present has remained unbroken, and that the occurrence of a future event is merely an extension of this unbroken chain. Hence, the decision of the couple and the serial killer was predetermined. In view of this, assigning moral culpability to their decision is not possible because they were not in control of their action, even though they made their decision consciously. In fact, determinism implies that we are never morally responsible for our actions.
Proponents of free will, on the other hand, would assert that their decision was not predetermined. Instead, it was determined by their character, inclinations, personality and, for the parents, reality of the situation. Regardless, their decision invariably has moral and ethical implications and consequences. Without moral culpability and accountability, there would be chaos, anarchy, turmoil, discord, disharmony, pain and suffering in the society we live in.
Despite the freedom of choice offered by free will, it is not a carte blanche for dealing with an eventuality in any manner one pleases. But as flawed humans, we are prone to make mistakes, and often repetitively, sometimes resulting in evil deeds.
Moreover, the choices we make, whether good or bad, do have long lasting effects well beyond an immediate future, and as such, we have to face the repercussions thereof. That is why any ethical system, which also is a product of free will, imposes strict checks and balances on the type and scope of actions one may indulge in.
The ability to make a conscious decision and face the outcome of such a decision goes hand in hand with the cardinal doctrine of Karma, “as you sow so shall you reap.” Thus, the teachings of karma weigh heavily on our pursuit of an ultimate liberation from the bondage of sorrow and suffering, and establish the foundation for the path to liberation and enlightenment.  
The enormous diversity of factors and causes that can and do affect our karma might appear to be too burdensome for us to overcome and, therefore, render any effort at truly gaining some measure of control over our destiny rather improbable. Notwithstanding this apparent karmic insurmountability, the doctrine of free will posits that we do possess a freedom of volitional action that offers a breakthrough.
Since karma tells us that our actions in the past will bear result in the future, the karmic footprints that we lay down cannot be reversed. However, they can be gradually erased in the future as we become increasingly cognizant of the aftereffects of our intended and unintended actions. Consequently, it is a reasonable proposition to profess that volition does play a key role in the process of emancipation from undesired and disharmonious actions and consequences.
Seeking to redeem oneself by erasing the unsavory karmic footprints totally may turn out to be a near impossibility in one life span. That should not be a deterrent, though. Through self-inquiry and self-introspection, propelled by free will, one can always diligently strive to become better human beings.
Finally, on the one hand, determinism tells us that free will is a meaningless concept because forces beyond our control determine our every action and decision. On the other hand, free will allows us to be true sources of novelty and creativity, although we are often restricted by the constraints imposed by the mores of the society.
Furthermore, the ability to make a conscious choice and face the consequences of such a choice goes hand in hand with the construct of free will. That’s the world we live in where what happens to us in the future depends on the choices we make, not by effects of causal sequences.

The writers are, respectively, a Retired Surgeon living in Virginia and a Professor of Physics at Fordham University, New York