Blogger Kevin Drum took a crack at free will awhile back, specifically, as to whether or not it exists. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has made a video about her lack of belief in the concept of free will that makes for an interesting (if sometimes difficult to follow) watch. I find this to be a fascinating topic of discussion, and have had in-person conversations about it every so often. While I don't pretend to be some sort of scientific expert, I wanted to share my thoughts about it here. Particularly, how the idea can be (unscientifically) compared and contrasted with various societal, cultural and religious touchstones.
First, let's center on what free will is. Merriam Webster defines it as follows:
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
I think we'd probably all nod our heads in agreement with the first definition. It's the second one that I find to be more debatable and, ultimately, the one I'm pretty sure I disagree with. If we are to consider free will to be something that is not determined by prior causes, then I would argue that free will does not exist. Nearly everything in this universe is a reaction to something that came before it. Who we are now is based on a multitude of people, situations, influences and events that have basically become a cascade effect throughout our lives. Sure, we can make certain choices or decisions that are -- at least on the surface -- voluntary, but those decisions are informed by the lives we've lived.
As a gay man, something that fascinates me no end is the idea of counter-culture. Case-in-point: I've had conversations with queer activists and scholars who have expressed disdain for gay and lesbian couples who adopt children. They've referred to them as trying to be "heteronormative." To that I say: the moment you decide not to do something based on the predominant culture (in this case, heterosexualism), then you are most certainly controlled by that principal culture. Some (many?) probably wouldn't see it that way. They would look upon their decisions as a form of freedom. 'The majority of people -- those who are considered 'normal' -- do things this way - therefore we will do things the other way. We will do things considered to be edgy and perhaps even unacceptable by the mainstream culture.' Etc., etc. All of that's fine, but it is also -- consciously or not -- allowing yourself to be influenced and controlled by the predominant culture. In this case, the sense of free will is illusory.
Another concept I enjoy discussing is that of altruism. Humanity often acts in its own self interest. Someone may do X and Y because they believe it will, sooner or later, lead them to Z. We do things to attain goals that benefit us, or for some kind of reward. It can be money, love, status, or adoration. Then there are the acts often described as selfless, wherein someone will buy a homeless person on the street a meal if they ask, or someone will jump into an icy lake to help a person who is drowning. Such persons are described as altruistic. They acted without thought or concern of what's in it for them. Sometimes, they even put themselves at risk. That's all well and good, but I would argue that true altruism doesn't exist.
Even the most seemingly selfless person derives some sense of satisfaction from doing good works -- works that would seemingly come without any apparent benefit. Performing such acts makes them feel good. It completes them in some way. And, that's great! There should be more kind acts done in the world. That said, there is something within these good samaritans that propels them to do their good deeds. True, they may not receive (or expect) material, monetary, or outwardly emotional compensation, but something about it is beneficial for them. A better view of oneself? Feeling satisfaction at helping another human being? There is some sort of internal reward and, if they are unable to articulate it, or explain why they acted on it without much thought, then I would say that is a sign of a lack of free will.
To tread somewhat gingerly, there is also the role genetics plays into who we are and how we respond to things. I may not be using genetics in the correct manner here, but the general parlance is that of being biologically predisposed to responding or behaving in certain ways. It is the 'nature' part of the nature vs. nurture debate. At a non-intellectual level, it's akin to how certain people can eat a lot of high calorie, high fat food, never exercise, and maintain a slim and toned figure, meanwhile others who do so become obese. What the body does is -- automatically, at least -- pre-programmed.
Of course, the question arises: What do we do regarding legal consequences for those who commit crimes? If we go earnestly down the rabbit hole of there being no such thing as free will, then how accountable should someone be for their detrimental actions? This is where things get tricky, and I don't have an immediate answer. It should also be stated at this point that I am not fully on board with the notion of there being no free will. Consider this more of a mental exercise.
Going back to the two definitions of what free will is that were laid out at the start of this post, I still take issue with the second characterization. I see no way around "prior causes" being an influence on what we do. If you're sitting at home one evening and feel like going out to eat, then sure, the choice you make is, well, the choice you make. You choose the Italian restaurant over the burger joint. That may seem like an isolated, standalone decision made of your own free will and, in a sense, it is. But we can't ignore that lurking behind that choice is a lifetime of influences and experiences and possibly even genetic predisposition that helped nudge you toward the option that was chosen.
So is that still free will, or no? That is the question. When you find out, please let me know.
Comments
Post a Comment