ON THE GREATEST MORAL ISSUE IN LIFE
Is there a more profound moral question in human life, than whether Free Will (FW) is true or an illusion? You judge if it is so:
•• Billions of Christians and Muslims are taught that how you use your FW determines whether you will suffer forever in “a lake of fire” or live in bliss eternally after death.
•• For the non-religious, whether Free Will is true is crucial to our understanding of justice, ourselves and all others.
DEFINITIONS
Laymen – means all non-professionals.
Most Professionals – refers to professionals in fields unrelated to the FW question such as dentists, accountants and geologists.
Free Will – means a supposed ability to choose among alternatives, free of any hereditary and environmental influence if either would be decisive in that choice.
Determinism – asserts that all events are caused by prior events.
Compatibilism – is the view of a relatively small but powerful few who claim what they have is compatible with FW because it means acting according to one’s motivations, desires, or reasons, without external coercion, even if those motivations are themselves determined by prior causes.
Responsible – means the decider is the only cause of a decision, except they are not responsible if acting under force, too young or mentally incompetent.
Accountable – the doer of an act, such as a five-year-old who pulled the trigger is accountable but not responsible, because too young to understand the consequences of the act.
I want to make the case that most people must not forfeit their need to take a position on this portentous moral question just because they do not have expertise in philosophy or the specialized science disciplines.
Experts in science and philosophy at the deepest levels speak a language we do not understand. Furthermore, on the matter of FW, experts always disagree – especially philosophers. So how can the majority of people determine their position?
They must decide by the fair use of common sense, which means examining their own experience honestly. Then, and essential, to learn as much as they can from the relevant experts on both sides. Finally, to weigh it all and then taking the stand making the most sense to you, subject to change if your belief changes.
Stanford U., Professor David Eagleman, in his acclaimed book, INCOGNITO, said: “If you think genes don’t affect how people behave, consider this fact: If you are a carrier of a particular set of genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is: 4 times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes, 3 times higher for robbery, 5 times higher for aggravated assault, 8 times higher to be arrested for murder, 13 times higher to be arrested sexual offense. The overwhelming majority of prisoners carry these genes – 51 times higher to be on death-row – 98.1 percent are male. As regards that dangerous set of genes, you’ve probably heard of them. They are summarized as the Y chromosome. If you’re a carrier, we call you a male.”
Professor Robert Sapolsky, also a neuroscientist at Stanford U, in his thousand page book, BEHAVE, explained in mind-numbing detail the science which he said he thought would pretty much settle the FW debate. It did not, so he wrote DETERMINED for non-experts. There he tells why he is convinced that science overwhelmingly proves that FW is an illusion. He confronts the arguments of FW advocates and explains the evidence which, taken all together, he sees as proving them wrong. He focuses on claims that FW is an EMERGENT PROPERTY; those citing QUANTUM MECHANICS as proving FW; and on CHAOS THEORY, that causes are so complex they cannot be predicted.
The very premise of FW is that all – but those forced, too young and mentally incompetent – have a freedom, enabling them to make seriously deliberated decisions free of the decisive influence of their biology and heredity. This is a BREATHTAKING CLAIM on its face but many times so, when you compare the claim to what you know was your own experience in life.
The common sense case for FW as an illusion is based on the undisputed fact that our very existence, our abilities and our experiences in life, were imposed on us without an iota of choice, much less free choice.
Why do so many believe they have FW? There are two very persuasive reasons, and some not at all:
•• We all know we choose every day between alternatives, and then do as we decided to do.
•• It is certain the world works on that premise – as it must in order to demand and expect adherence to promises and understandings, the essence of relations between family, friends, and others of every kind. [But we are also certain of other illusions too, such as the earth is standing still, though it is spinning at the equator at some 24,000 mph.]
•• We all desire to be re-united with deceased family and friends, to see the horrors suffered in this world made right, both from natural and man-caused disasters, and to punish those who caused the man-made suffering. [But, these are emotional-reaction wishes, not the way the world works.]
Do those teaching FW have motives? For most Christians and all Muslims it absolves God for the evil of his own creations. Saint Augustine, 386-395 A.D., wrote, “Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been performed voluntarily.” De Libero Arbitrio, translated as On FW. [His moral reasoning was right then and for all time.]
Also, with glaring motives to teach FW are the hundreds of thousands of priests, mullahs, theologians and underlings who will not stand by and let the foundation of their religion, the need for a God, and Savior, collapse.
I suspect compatibilists of wishing to validate their self-esteem and claim earned and deserved credit for who they are and where they are. Some are very smart and even eminent. They must be atheists since acting as you want can land you in hell to suffer forever. [My common sense tells me they are quite wrong, they were just very lucky in the stacked lottery of life – stacked because as Matthew quotes Jesus as warning “many” go to eternal suffering, while only “few” are saved.]
Though certainly not a compatibilist, I have more than once seen (on YouTube) that great biologist and atheist-hero Richard Dawkins, equivocate when asked his opinion about FW. Because of his enormous prestige, this does great damage to the case against FW. I suspect his criteria for proof are too stringent, he has not yet seen what he considers conclusive science to disprove FW.
I hope he will consider the common sense case as convincing enough to be his opinion until and unless he sees definitive proof to the contrary.
Ponder the factors which caused each of the 8,000,000,000 now alive, the 109,000,000,000 estimated dead, and the yet unborn, each unique – truly one of a kind, ever.
Who you are depends – On you mother’s behavior while you are gestating. The century and nation of your birth, mutations in your brain and body, nurture and experiences in infancy and childhood are also decisive.
You will recognize these too, as of supreme importance in your life:
•• Physical stature, looks, smile, voice and intelligence, sexual drive and proclivities, wit, personality, natural ability in sports, music and dance, early life;
•• Religious indoctrination, economic circumstances, cultural influences, political and civil rights, and the prevailing customs of your times.
•• Add the blizzard of un-sought experiences from womb to tomb interacting with your biological self.
Do we not have you at every point in your life, always unique – and none of these were chosen by you? This is the backbone of the common sense case because you know better than anyone how these factors made you who you are.
This uniqueness is the product of the continuous interaction of our biological inheritance and experiences that is our 24/7 daily life. That this common sense conclusion is supported by a vast and growing body of science pointing to FW is an illusion, as Professor Eagleman is quoted above and Professor Sapolsky has no doubt about. Another quite certain case is made by Dr. Antonia Cashmore, of the U. of Pennsylvania, in an article you can find on the internet called THE LUCRETION SWERVE. Also, on YOU TUBE an hour-long presentation, YOU DON’T HAVE FREE WILL by the acclaimed Professor Emeritus of the U. of Chicago, Dr. Jerry Coyne.
It is well established in science that all people are a bundle of wants – often contradictory. Most of these are in our unconscious minds, they compete for our conscious attention, There is no unified you or me. It is why we have no knowledge of what we will think of next.
Consider Tom’s case of conflicting wants: For many years he has been happily married to Mary whom he dearly loves. He has the chance far from his home town for adultery with a younger and very attractive Emily, who has signaled her willingness several times. He lets it pass three separate and widely spaced times because he thinks it is a sin and would devastate Mary if discovered. But the fourth time he accepted.
Advocates of FW ask you to believe: That Tom’s FW operated all four times and every time without any decisive influence from his biological inheritance and all environmental influences as they interacted over time.
Determinists ask you to believe: The reason why Tom made his to-do decision was, determined because he was born male, heterosexual, had a very strong drive for Mary, which was turbo-charged by his certainty she wanted the affair too, thought the chances of discovery were remote and for other reasons that neither he, we, nor all the wise men, could ever know.
Which does your common sense choose?
For all these reasons, people are not fixed at birth, they are in constant flux, their biological selves interacting with their experiences changes them – two-year old piano prodigies scream biology, but not without interacting with music and a piano!
This malleability permits us to apply to others, measures, such as education, good example, praise, blame, scorn and even punishment, knowing the experience will cause changes and hoping the change will be as desired. It commonly does as with education. That it often does not, is because we do not know what experience will work with a particular individual when each is unique – especially not with criminals.
Finally – just logic – what has to be true if the definition of FW is true – a supposed ability to choose among alternatives, free of any hereditary and environmental influence if either would be decisive in that choice. [People defined by their human nature must decide, free of their human nature!]
But, let’s grant it for argument. If the will is free from any tendency or tilt, any decision must be random, grounded in nothing; it will produce any logically possible outcome – which will surely NOT be your will, except by chance!
It is therefore NOT a leap for the majority of non-specialists to fairly conclude that we can be free of external compulsion, but never free of ever-present internal compulsion, the source in our brains of all thoughts and deeds.
Our uniqueness explains why behavioral, medical, psychological, and sociological studies, reveal only fractional correlations with identifiable factors; the rest of the story lies in the not-yet-identified and maybe the never-to-be identified factors. It also explains why it is virtually impossible to think we will ever have a 100% explanation for any individual’s behavior.
Despite all the foregoing, there is a great paradox with Determinism – that determinists regularly conduct their lives as though we have FW. It is not hypocrisy, but more like humility.
It takes a non-emotional state to remind ourselves that our choices are the effects of causes over which we had no control. Determinists’ reaction to certain kinds of events is just as emotional, and when emotional, just as judgmental. It requires real effort to remember that it is a necessary fiction.
Albert Einstein affirmed the great benefits in Determinism – in his 1922 speech, My Credo: “This awareness of the lack of FW keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.”
••This is surely salutary for those among us who take pride in ‘not suffering fools gladly’.
•• It converts “love your neighbor as yourself” from a utopian reach to a prerequisite for fairness and justice.
•• It makes one more understanding and patient, thus, reducing tension and stress.
•• It is a cutting come-uppance to those (compatibilists, included) who confuse good luck with deserved merit – as if there were any better explanation for the good luck of the George Clooneys and the horrible luck of the Elephant Men of the world.
••••
I am one month from the 98th year of life and am grateful not to be in thrall to the FW illusion, the source and begetter of judgment, condemnation and hate.
I am grateful too, that my luck caused me to conclude that the real reason we should not hate our fellows is not because it is a command from some God, but from the profound meaning entailed in “there, but for pure luck go I”.
What does your common sense tell you?
Whether you think I am profoundly wrong or right, I would love to hear from you. E-mail me at fellowfeather@gmail.com. I will respond to each of your substantive comments. JWH