Free Will Part 2 – Friday, September 11, 2009
We have decided to tackle the mind numbing issue of free will again, as it was one of our most interesting discussions so far. It seems that we can talk for hours and leave with more questions than answers, but that is what we love about philosophy!
To prepare for the discussion, you might want to consider the following issues. First of all, what is your definition of free will? It seems that most people hold the idea that free will is something like the ability of humans to do anything at any moment, without cause. Most people like to think that they could, at any moment, choose to do anything. When you think about it that way, it may seem like the world would be a pretty crazy place if we really had the ability to perform uncaused, random, maybe even chaotic actions at any given moment. Maybe you disagree?
Or maybe that is not the right idea to hold about the nature of free will. What else could it mean? Possibly that humans have real choices, and are free to make them, but with constraints. Maybe it’s not really true that anyone can do anything at any second. Maybe within our frame of reference, and our universe, we can choose from a certain range of options. But then are we really free?
Or worse yet (at least it seems according to most people), maybe what we perceive as free will is just an illusion. If we understand our universe to be governed by certain physical laws, that occur and interact as a causal chain through time, aren’t we just part of that chain? Why would we have any more free will than a tree blowing in the wind? The rest of our environment reacts in a predictable way given what we understand. We don’t really believe that a monkey can, at any second, just “chose” to build a car from scratch. We believe the monkey has certain choices available that it can freely make given its circumstances. But we don’t believe the monkey has complete freedom in the sense that it can randomly act in any way.
To take it a step further, if we discover that physical determinism is actually true (which no one has actually decided yet), and we really do not possess the kind of freedom we think we do – how can we hold people responsible for their actions? When it comes down to it, if no one can actually freely chooses to do anything, why would be blame or punish anyone for anything? Think about it – in our legal system, we generally do not blame people for an accident they did not cause. Along the same line, there have been cases where people have had brain tumors that cause them to act inappropriately and differently than they would have without the tumor. When the tumor is removed, they suddenly lose the desire to act inappropriately. We do not blame someone for acting in a wrongful manner if they had no control over the physical cause of their situation. The same usually goes for certain diseases that affect the mind. We discussed a case about a man with Alzheimer’s. Would we blame such a person for wrongful acts when there is an unavoidable, physical cause for their behavior beyond their control?
It seems like we would be in a similar situation for all of humanity if we figured out that no one has free will. What would be the point of punishment or blame? Or could it be that there is something different about humans? Maybe for some reason, because we have self-aware minds, it puts us in a different position than the rest of the universe. But how? Do we really have any choice but to follow the rules of the universe?
Why do most people get upset when you imply that they may not possess the kind of free will they imagine themselves to have? What does that say about us as humans, or even as Americans? How important is it to you that you possess some kind of freedom of will?
Scroll back to our first post about free will from May 1, 2009, or click on the tag free will. I found another video for your viewing pleasure regarding this topic:
