Many people assume that the will is easy to understand and needs no definition. However, philosophers and theologians have often made the subject unnecessarily complicated. Therefore, it is helpful to begin with a simple explanation.
The will is the faculty by which the mind chooses. Whenever we exercise our will, we are making a choice. Whether we approve or disapprove, accept or reject, desire or refuse, we are always choosing one thing rather than another.
Even when we refuse something, we are still making a choice. We choose not to have the thing offered. Thus every voluntary action is fundamentally an act of choosing.
John Locke described the will as the power to prefer or choose. Edwards agrees substantially with this. Whenever we will something, we are preferring it over the alternatives before us. To act voluntarily is to act according to what we choose.
Although "will" and "desire" are not exactly the same thing, they are never truly opposed to one another.
A person may speak words intended to persuade someone while secretly hoping those words will not succeed. Yet this does not mean the will and desire are in conflict. The person wills to speak the words and desires to speak them. At the same time, he desires that the outcome will be different. The objects of the will and desire are different, not contradictory.
In every act of the will there is some preference of the mind. Whenever we choose, we incline toward one option and away from another. If there is no preference at all—if the mind is in perfect balance—then there is no act of will.
To determine the will means to cause it to choose one thing rather than another.
The great question is: What determines our choices?
Edwards argues that the will is always determined by the strongest motive. By "motive," he means whatever moves or influences the mind toward a particular choice.
The strongest motive is not necessarily the objectively best option. Rather, it is whatever appears most attractive or agreeable to the mind at that moment.
Nothing can influence us unless it is perceived by us. Therefore, motives work through our understanding and perception. Whatever appears most desirable, pleasing, suitable, or agreeable will ultimately prevail in determining our choice.
Edwards teaches that the will always follows what appears to be the greatest good at the moment of choice.
By "good," he does not necessarily mean morally good. He means what appears most agreeable or pleasing to the person choosing.
For example, a drunkard may know that drinking today will lead to misery tomorrow. Yet if he chooses to drink, it is because the immediate pleasure appears more desirable to him at that moment than abstaining. His choice follows what seems most agreeable in his present view.
Likewise, a person who sacrifices present pleasure for future benefit does so because the future benefit appears more attractive than the immediate pleasure.
In every case, the will follows what the mind sees as most desirable at that particular time.
Many things affect what appears desirable to us:
Some things appear beautiful, pleasant, profitable, or beneficial. Others appear painful, unpleasant, or harmful.
A smaller pleasure available immediately often seems more attractive than a greater pleasure far in the future.
A reward that appears certain is usually more attractive than one that appears uncertain.
Things we strongly imagine or vividly experience often influence us more than things we only faintly consider.
Different people find different things attractive because their hearts and dispositions differ. One person delights in virtue; another delights in vice. The same person may even view the same object differently at different times.
Thus our choices reveal not only what we see, but also who we are.
Edwards distinguishes between two kinds of necessity.
Natural necessity arises from physical causes and limitations.
Examples include:
A person cannot fly by his own power.
A blind person cannot see.
A stone falls because of gravity.
These limitations exist regardless of what a person desires.
Moral necessity arises from the condition of the heart, desires, inclinations, and motives.
For example:
A loving child may find it impossible to murder his parents.
A virtuous person may find it impossible to delight in wickedness.
A hardened sinner may find it impossible to love holiness.
The inability here is not physical but moral. The person can perform the action physically, but does not want to.
This distinction is crucial.
A person lacks the physical or mental capacity to do something.
If a man has no legs, he cannot walk.
A person has the ability but lacks the desire.
A drunkard can refuse another drink physically, but because his desires dominate him, he will not refuse.
A sinner can obey God physically, but because his heart is opposed to God, he does not want to obey.
Therefore, the problem is not a lack of power but a lack of willingness.
As Edwards says in essence:
The issue is not that people cannot do what is right, but that they do not want to.
According to common understanding, freedom means the ability to do what one wants.
A person is free when he can act according to his own choice without external force or restraint.
Freedom does not require that choices arise without causes. Nor does it require complete independence from motives, desires, or character.
A man is free if:
He chooses an action.
Nothing prevents him from carrying it out.
This is true regardless of why he made that choice.
Many theologians in Edwards' day argued that true freedom requires the will to determine itself.
Edwards argues that this idea is self-contradictory.
If every choice must be determined by a previous choice, then that previous choice must also be determined by an earlier choice. This creates an endless chain with no beginning.
But every chain must have a first act.
If the first act was not determined by a previous choice, then the theory fails. If it was determined by a previous choice, then there was no first act.
Thus the idea that the will ultimately determines itself leads to an infinite regress and cannot explain human decision-making.
Humans are moral agents because they possess:
Understanding
Reason
Conscience
The ability to recognize good and evil
The ability to choose according to their desires
Responsibility does not require absolute independence from motives. Rather, it requires that people act voluntarily according to their own hearts.
Because people choose what they desire most, their choices reveal their character. Therefore, they remain accountable for those choices before God.
Jonathan Edwards argues that:
The will is the mind's power of choosing.
Every act of will is an act of preference.
The will is always determined by the strongest motive.
People always choose what appears most desirable to them at the moment.
Human inability is often moral rather than natural.
True freedom is the ability to act according to one's desires.
The will cannot ultimately determine itself.
Human beings remain morally responsible because they act voluntarily according to their own hearts.
In Edwards' view, freedom is not the power to choose without causes. Freedom is the power to act according to what one most desires, while those desires themselves reveal the condition of the heart.