The philosophical inquiry into moral responsibility and free will primarily centers on understanding the nature of human agency and its role in determining moral responsibility.

Hard determinism posits that all events, including human actions, are predetermined by prior causes, leaving no room for genuine free will and, consequently, moral responsibility.

Compatibilism asserts that free will and moral responsibility are not necessarily incompatible with determinism, arguing that even in a causally determined world, individuals can still possess the capacity to make autonomous choices and bear moral responsibility for their actions.

Libertarianism upholds the belief that genuine free will exists independently of causal determinism, enabling individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by prior causes.

Hard determinism argues that since all events, including human actions, are predetermined by prior causes, individuals lack genuine free will and, therefore, cannot be held morally responsible for their choices.

Libertarianism maintains that moral responsibility necessitates the absence of external constraints that could potentially undermine an individual's genuine free will and autonomous decision-making.

Soft determinism argues that while external factors may influence an individual's choices, they do not completely eliminate the possibility of genuine free will, allowing for moral responsibility to be attributed to individuals.

Libertarianism asserts that moral responsibility requires the existence of genuine alternative possibilities, arguing that individuals can only be held morally responsible for actions that they could have chosen otherwise.

Critics of compatibilism argue that even if free will and moral responsibility can coexist in a deterministic universe, genuine free will, which is essential for moral responsibility, is still lacking.

Intention-based responsibility emphasizes the significance of an individual's intentions in determining moral responsibility, arguing that individuals should be held responsible for the intended consequences of their actions, regardless of the actual outcomes.

Intention-based responsibility asserts that individuals should be held morally responsible for the consequences of their actions that were intended, even if those consequences were not actually realized.

Situationalism posits that moral responsibility is influenced by the specific circumstances and context in which an individual makes a decision, recognizing that external factors can impact an individual's choices and their subsequent moral responsibility.

Critics of situationalism argue that emphasizing the influence of external factors could potentially absolve individuals of all moral responsibility, undermining the concept of accountability for one's actions.

Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of an individual's character and virtues in determining moral responsibility, arguing that virtuous individuals are more likely to make morally responsible choices.

Virtue ethics asserts that individuals who possess virtues such as honesty, integrity, and compassion are more inclined to make morally responsible choices, even in challenging situations.