[Originally published on December 23rd, 2017 on Wordpress]
INTRODUCTION:
One of the most common questions within the discipline of philosophy happens to be free will. For thousands of years thinkers ranging from academics, theologians, to even scientists have analyzed whether or not humans actually possess free will. Renown philosopher David Hume even referred to the free will question as " ... the most contentious question of metaphysics..." [2]. In the modern era the general consensus among academics and scientists tends to be that it nothing more than an illusion. Humans tend to perceive themselves as autonomous agents over their actions, while much of it can be reduced to biology, physiology, environment, historical pretext, and sociological variables. This paradigm demonstrates how science strives to deduce everything down to the rational and salient component. If it cannot be quantified and measured, then it automatically fails the stringent veracity test. However, can even decision we make really be broken down to mere neurological activity and socioeconomic components? While being skeptical and even doubtful that free will exists might be en vogue in Academia, others believe differently.
Traditionally science and religion have always clashed and even at times appeared to be incapable to the extent that they were diametrically opposed. While historically and in contemporary rhetoric, there may be some evidence to bolster this claim I would prefer to not go down that avenue. However, religion does tend to take the opposite stance on the whole free will issue. At least from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective. All three religions do have common roots. While all three may seem like they would have a deterministic or even fatalistic undertone, due to the premise of "God's plan", they veer away from this with the utmost precision. These three theological philosophies circumvent it through the concept of god granting humans free will. Providing humans with the ability to chose between right and wrong from a moral standpoint. All three have well-defined punishments and disciplinary ramifications for chose the side of evil. As well as the rewards of choosing the righteous path. Religion does not want to isolate everything into the logical and tangible box. Rather it seeks to provide truth in regards to the unknown aspects of life. That what cannot be quantified and measured.
Now, I did not mean to do a science versus religion comparison for the purpose of devoting the entire blog post to cross-comparing their views on free will. Rather I utilized these two different points of view to introduce the topic of free will. To understand a specific perspective on free will you must dive into the core concepts of that particular philosophical paradigm. Essentially, I would like to do more blog posts in relation to the topic of free will, so this will only be a cursory examination of the topic. An overview if you will. I will certainly weigh in with my preliminary opinion on the topic as well.
COMPATIBILISM PERSPECTIVE:
In regards to the analysis of free will, the parameters under which it is assessed is by its compatibility with determinism. Specifically causal determinism, defined as the outcomes of the future being preset by the "laws of nature" and past context. The criterion for the judgment of the existence of free will from this means of assessment is if determinism is true, then free will does or does not exist. Compatibilists assert that if determinism is true, then there is the possibility that free will does exist. Compatibilists postulate that even if the outcome is predetermined, due to independent cognitive processes, the individual is still able to make their own decisions. In a sense, compatibilists perceive free will as an entity separate from the results. Which is certainly rational on the surface because in human perception the common consensus is that we have autonomy over our thoughts and minds. Therefore, we can still choose regardless of the variable of the outcome. Please note that this is the most charitable position in regards to free will. [2]
THE INCOMPATIBILIST VIEW:
The general view of the incompatibilists supports the notion that if determinism is true there is no way an individual could have free will. This point of view also assumes that free will also is incongruity with moral responsibility as well. There are two subcategories of incompatibilist views, the Hard incompatibilists and Libertarian incompatibilists. The Hard incompatibilists believe that determinism is true and no one possesses free will. The libertarians hold the view that determinism is false and that some have free will. [2]
PESSIMISM AND FREE WILL:
Pessimists do not vary too much from incompatibilists in regards to their perspective on free will. Similarly, they espouse the view that if determinism is true then free will does not exist. However, pessimists take it one step further by operating under the assumption that free will is impossible. To the extent that it doesn't exist, yet even if it did people would not possess it. It is a slightly more radical strain of philosophical paradigm than the incompatibilists view.[2].
EVEN IF FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION IS IT STILL IMPORTANT?
So let's assume that the deterministic or the pessimist/ fatalist perspective on free will is in fact true. Let's say that free will is an illusion, is the belief among the general public that free will exists significant? The issue becomes that if the choices of the individual are immaterial to the result can we genuinely hold them accountable? Being plagued by such questions we enter an arena of moral ambiguity that can lead down a twisted and treacherous path. If we remove the variable of choice or free will from the equation, the very fabric of our societal perception of personal conduct would be unraveled. If you cannot attribute responsibility for a transgression it would radically undermine our whole system of criminal justice and even basic decorum. It is paradigm shattering to grapple with the concept that we cannot hold an individual accountable for a transgression as it wasn't there choice.
The potential pitfalls of perpetuating the idea that free will is an illusion at a general level have been addressed by professor Saul Smilansky. Smilansky is a professor of philosophy at the University of Haifa, in Israel. Professor Smilansky asserts that even if free will is an illusion it is too hazardous to represent it as such. He believes that espousing the determinism view of free will be "very dangerous". However, Smilanksy also goes beyond the mere carnage of displacing the blame from the individual, but how it would also "undermine praise". The courageous feats of even our most valiant heroes would be less vibrant. Accolades alone would be devalued due to being awarded on circumstance versus effort and personal investment. Smilansky is resolute in preserving the illusion of free will to stave off chaos and loss of initiative for humanity as a whole. [3].
WHAT IF IT DIDN'T MATTER IF THE ILLUSION IS NOT PERPETUATED?
From the standpoint of superficial logic, it would appear if you relinquish blame it may adversely impact the behavior and conduct of people as a whole. While this explanation is certainly satisfying, the reciprocal possibility needs to be examined. The philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris believe that we are better off not presenting free will as anything other than an illusion. Harris purports that even if well intended, perpetuating an illusion engenders harm. Harris expounds upon how we utilize harsh punitive sanctions for violation of laws with little consideration for physiological and psychological factors for the behavior. Such as a brain tumor impeding proper cognitive function. How such occurrences have to lead to anti-social and even violent behavior. Harris supports the notion that individuals who commit criminal acts are to a certain extent unlucky in regards to the genetic lottery. The individual was unable to select their genes and their parents. I have to say, he certainly has a really solid point. An individual can inherit a higher propensity for aggressive behavior and that coupled with living in an impoverished neighborhood is enough to passively cultivate a future gang member. He states that if we surrender the notion of free will reprehensible behavior would be seen as another "natural phenomenon ". What this would do for us as a society is we would be more rational in regards to our consequences for violating the law. Removing the vindictive nature of punishment would lead us in a more human direction. [3].
DISCUSSION:
The whole concept of free will is an extremely cumbersome one to judge the veracity of in any meaningful capacity. There are extremely compelling arguments on both sides of the spectrum. Considering the number of superlative arguments on both sides of the fence I cannot pick a side. I suppose you could say I am a free will agnostic. Not to be confused with a religious agnostic. I cannot say for sure that whether or not we truly possess that we do or do not possess free will. Obviously, I would really like to think that we possess free will, however, I cannot purport this stance with complete and steadfast confidence. This is one of those issues where I will need to do some soul searching before I ascertain the correct perspective in my eyes.
However, while I may not be able to jump on to either conceptual bandwagon. I still hold some skepticism towards the deterministic and fatalistic perspectives. I personally believe that it is due to the bias that I want to believe that free will does exist. What individual wants to believe that they have little to no control over our destiny? At a natural level, humans want to believe that they have autonomy, even if it is fabricated to some extent. Can everything be reduced to a mere cause and effect chain of events. Similar to B.F. Skinner's perception of behavior. Reinforcement leads us towards the desired behavior and punishment makes us very away from unwanted behavior. This linear train of logic has long since lost its validation. We now know that an individual's cognitive processes also play a role in our choices. While I may question the validity of free will being an illusion, I do agree with the perspective that we should not accept free will as an illusion. The potential for adverse ramifications if we openly refer to free will as an illusion would be too dire. Without accountability, people will no longer be as cautious about their actions. That is a can. Of worms that should never be opened. Even with the concept of free will existing is widely accepted as conventional wisdom and we still see a large range of adverse behavior. How can we risk purporting free will as being a misconception.
FOOT NOTES
1. https://youtu.be/1wqmSQ9G4us
2.http:www.iep.utm.edu/free will/
3. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/these-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/)
4. https://invertedlogicblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/24/philosophical-rants-6-an-overview-of-freewill
Comments