Classic Revisited: Semi-Compatibilism, Moral Responsibility, and Droid Determinism

Author's Note: The blog we are revisiting was originally published in 2017 after I was first introduced to the work of compatibilists John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza. Since then, I’ve earned a PhD in theology and read their book, Responsibility and Control, twice. I’ve also developed several formal arguments that further clarify and reinforce the ideas explored here. While this piece remains accessible and full of Star Wars analogies, I’ve updated a few sections to reflect eight more years of reflection and refinement.

Semi-Compatibilism & Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD)

Several years ago, Dr. Tyler Dalton McNabb asked a question on social media---a question that would send me down a deep epistemological rabbit hole: “If you had to choose, would you rather be a Calvinist (compatibilist version) or an open theist?” I responded:

“The ironic thing is that if Calvinism = divine determinism, and it happens to be true, then no one actually has the ability to choose between Calvinism or Open Theism. God would make that choice for us.”

That led to my first lively exchange with Paul Manata---a Calvinist who appealed to a version of compatibilism called semi-compatibilism (from Fischer), which claims that even if all things are causally determined, we can still be morally responsible—as long as we have what they call guidance control.

But what exactly is guidance control?

Droids and Determinism: A Star Wars Illustration

Let’s borrow from Rogue One. Consider K-2SO, the reprogrammed Imperial droid:

1. Programmed by the Empire: K-2 is built and programmed to obey and serve the Empire. He flawlessly “chooses” in alignment with his programming. But his actions are not freely chosen—they’re determined by code he didn’t write.

2. Reprogrammed by the Rebellion: Cassian Andor reprograms K-2 to serve the Rebellion. K-2 obeys flawlessly again, “choosing” rebellion because that’s now his nature.

In both cases, K-2 is programmed to like his programming and to believe he “owns” it. But this illusion of ownership is also programmed by code he didn't write. He is still not morally responsible—his programming (or programmer) is.

1. Freethinking K-2: Now imagine the droid somehow---miraculously--- transcends his programming and becomes the source of his mental actions (I believe this is metaphysically impossible, but let's have some fun). Now K-2 begins to think freely. He doesn’t just passively execute subroutines—he actively deliberates. He forms beliefs. He actively reasons and then chooses. As C.S. Lewis might say, echoing his argument in Miracles, “Reasoning doesn’t just happen to K-2—he does it.”

Now suppose Yoda steps in and uses the Force to control K-2’s physical actions to ensure he behaves exactly as Yoda wants. K-2 can think otherwise, but he can’t act otherwise. He has guidance control but lacks regulative control.

1. K-2 Wants to Rebel… Against the Rebellion: Imagine K-2 freely chooses (in thought) to act on behalf of the Empire again—but Yoda is still controlling his body, making him act for the Rebellion. K-2 wants to do evil, but his physical actions (though good) are not his own. He is not praiseworthy. Yoda is.

Semi-Compatibilism: Close, But Not Close Enough

Semi-compatibilists say K-2 is responsible if he acts in line with his own values, even if he couldn’t do otherwise. That’s “guidance control.” But if those values, thoughts, judgments and the entirety of his mental actions were also determined by someone else, K-2 is no more responsible than a remote-controlled car. (Even Fischer acknowledges that guidance control does not require regulative control—but if sourcehood libertarian freedom is also absent, it’s hard to see how responsibility remains.)

The problem with semi-compatibilism under EDD is that it gives you the illusion of freedom without the sourcehood of your thoughts or desires. And if you're not the source, then you're not responsible---the source of your mental actions is.

Not Just the Ability to Think Otherwise…

Updated versions of the Free-Thinking Argument emphasize not just the ability to think otherwise, but also the origin of thought itself. Are you the one who determines how you weigh evidence and come to beliefs—or is someone (or something) else responsible?

Philosophically and biblically, the answer matters.

Biblical Support for Free Thinking

Scripture doesn't just command right action—it demands right thinking. Consider:

• 2 Corinthians 10:5: “Take every thought captive to obey Christ.” → How can you “take your thoughts captive” if you don’t originate your thoughts in the first place?

• Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy…” → If EDD is true, being taken captive by false teaching isn’t “up to you.” Someone else determined your deception.

• Matthew 5:21–28: Jesus equates mental actions (hatred, lust) with moral guilt → If those mental actions are determined by God, the blame belongs to the Determiner, not the passive cog.

In short, biblical moral responsibility requires rational freedom. You must be the source of your own evaluative judgments—especially in matters of moral, rational, or theological consequence.

So What? Why It Matters

At the end of the day, what compatibilists refer to as "guidance control" under EDD collapses. If the entirety of your physical and mental actions are determined—right down to the very way you experience sensations of deliberations and the manner in which ideas are processed in your head—then you are not a free agent or a free thinker. You are a puppet, a droid, or a programmed puppet-droid.

If God determines HOW you think, WHAT you believe, and HOW you weigh evidence, then you are not responsible for your theology. God is. And if that theology is false, then you have been deceived by this deity.

Final Thought

The only way semi-compatibilism survives is if some part of your cognitive life is free in a libertarian sense. And that’s the irony: semi-compatibilism quietly relies on the very thing it denies. It borrows the capital of libertarian freedom while trying to avoid its cost.

But once you grant that, you’ve taken your first step into the larger world of Mere Molinism. (See what I did there?) ;-)

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton