According to Hospers, acting based on free will is conscious yet such event is directed by unseen wires hidden within human unconsciousness at a depth which guides the main course of hatred or desire to do something that may set the person free. By this argument as well, Hospers states that one cannot be held responsible for an action resulting from a decision governed by the unconscious drive no matter how deliberately done in the process.
Though a person sees and is aware of what he actually does, there emerges a series of rationalizations in an attempt to explain this while one is absent in the realization that as he acts in conscious effort or free will, it is the unconscious or the inner clockwork that takes control. Similarly, Hospers maintains the proposition that because this is so, it is the act that must be accountable and not the man to answer for his state of being since his conscious approach serves only as a vehicle to deliver the ends brought about by the unconscious motivation. Within the latter, Hospers assumes that the key to its impact relies upon the shared functions of the ‘id’ by which the wants are acknowledged, the ‘superego’ that typically contradicts the ‘id’, and the unconscious ego which through compromise, keeps these two in proper balance.
In support of his position, the professor opens the subject by designating freedom in certain contexts where it may come to mind a full comprehension in relation to the nature of an act. He argues that ambiguity exists in claiming that a voluntary act is free. Hospers does not completely abolish the possibility of being inclined to the thought that all voluntary acts are free or conversely, that free acts are voluntary, he clarifies however that this is limited in scope due to subjective human preference which distinguishes acts that are voluntary from those that are not even if both could be initiated by freedom.nbsp.