Exploring the Ongoing Debate on Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Written on
Chapter 1: The Ongoing Dispute Over Free Will
The debate surrounding free will remains unresolved. Philosophers and scientists often find themselves speaking past one another, making it challenging to discern the true meaning behind statements like "free will is an illusion!" or "free will is genuine!" The core of the issue lies in differing interpretations of what it means to be free, which leads discussions into a complex labyrinth.
Countless discussions have centered on what individuals imply when they use the term "free will." To engage in this discourse, one must first clarify their own understanding of freedom. Do you perceive your mind and brain as two separate entities, with the mind making decisions that the brain executes? Would it surprise you if scientists could analyze your unconscious brain patterns to predict decisions you would make—your conscious mind being the "you" making those decisions—before you even consciously considered them?
Typically, beliefs regarding mental processes prior to brain activity align with a "dualistic" perspective. This viewpoint posits that the mind and brain are distinct entities: the mind being an immaterial essence akin to a soul, and the brain representing tangible biological matter. Some individuals may not identify as dualists, yet their beliefs and behaviors often reflect these implicit assumptions. Rather than viewing the mind as merely a product of the brain, dualism suggests that the mind can initiate events within the brain.
Consider the sequence of choosing a Coke from a store under a dualist framework:
- Initial thought: "I'm really thirsty. I think I'll choose this Coke."
- Brain: [activity enabling you to grab the Coke from the shelf]
The idea that a decision commences with a mental thought, rather than brain activity, contradicts scientific understanding. For any intention, thought, or decision made in your mind, preceding brain activity must exist since thoughts cannot materialize independently from the biological processes in your brain and body.
Thus, if your first awareness of desiring a Coke emerges at step one in the sequence above, a prior pattern of brain activity must have created that sensation of thirst. If this brain activity occurred before your initial conscious intention, by definition, you were unaware of it. Consequently, unconscious brain activity dictates your conscious thoughts. A more accurate depiction of the Coke-buying sequence would be:
- Brain: [activity related to the sensation of thirst]
- Initial awareness: "I'm really thirsty."
- Brain: [activity that generates a desire for a Coke]
- Next thought: "I think I'll choose this Coke."
- Brain: [activity that enables you to grab the Coke from the shelf]
Now, here’s the pivotal question: Does this sequence surprise you? If it does, you are not alone. Despite never labeling myself a dualist, my initial instincts about free will relied on dualistic assumptions (conscious thoughts preceding brain activity) rather than scientifically valid notions (brain activity prior to conscious thoughts). This realization struck me when I first encountered neuroscience research indicating that researchers could analyze individuals' unconscious brain activity to forecast their conscious decisions several seconds before they made them. This revelation firmly placed me in the "free will is an illusion" camp. If neuroscientists can predict my choice between a Coke and a smoothie before I make the decision, how can I genuinely assert that I possess free will?
Even if someone inquires about your reason for choosing a Coke at the moment of decision, your response is likely to be vague. Who knows? You simply felt like having a Coke. The underlying truth is that your immediate craving for a Coke stemmed from a series of unconscious brain activities that directed your attention toward that can. This unconscious activity may arise from numerous internal and external factors, many of which you might never fully understand.
But the discourse on free will extends beyond this. While current scientific principles suggest that unconscious brain activity must precede and predict conscious thoughts, does this necessitate discarding the concept of free will entirely?
The most compelling aspect of the free will discussion is its connection to moral responsibility. Should we declare that "free will is an illusion" and seek alternative rationales for holding individuals accountable for their actions? Or should we resist this notion and assert that "free will exists, but it’s not the dualist kind where your conscious mind dictates your actions"? The former perspective is typically referred to as incompatibilism, while the latter is known as compatibilism.
Incompatibilists argue that the notion of free will is fundamentally inconsistent with the understanding that our thoughts and intentions are shaped by influences beyond our control. Compatibilists, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, propose that the free will worth valuing is the kind we assume people possess when they competently enter into agreements. If you are in a sound state of mind, free from coercion or other immediate external pressures, you can exercise free will in your daily choices, even if those decisions are ultimately shaped by factors beyond your awareness. Dennett refers to this as one of the "varieties of free will worth wanting": the ability to respond actively and rationally to your environment.
In essence, the prominent figures in this debate largely agree on the mechanics of human choice. The conversation has shifted to a debate over definitions rather than whether our decisions are ultimately controlled by external influences. Most scientists recognize that we inhabit a deterministic universe, where all our thoughts and actions are the result of countless influences from our past that lie beyond our control or awareness. However, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that we should dismiss free will as a mere illusion.
Understanding the arguments suggesting free will is an illusion can be enlightening, as it challenges the common belief that our conscious reasoning initiates our decision-making process. One significant benefit of this disrupted belief is that it can foster greater empathy for the often poor choices others make. Should we really harbor resentment toward individuals when their personalities and decisions are ultimately products of deterministic circumstances?
No one chooses their birthplace, nor do they select their genetic makeup or parents. The trajectory of brain development is largely a series of random events, and your daily thoughts and decisions remain just as enigmatic. As thinkers like Sam Harris—an incompatibilist—often emphasize, if you closely observe your thoughts in the moment they arise, you'll find they often appear spontaneously. You do not will the next thought that enters your mind any more than you do the next heartbeat.
Once the dualist perception of free will has been dismantled, it becomes essential to reflect on moral responsibility and the nuances encapsulated in the term "free will." Despite identifying as an incompatibilist for many years, I have since embraced compatibilism. The free will that warrants our attention is the kind that differentiates a rational individual from one with impaired judgment. Factors like immaturity, mental illness, and overt manipulation can hinder our capacity to make sound choices. Yet, under typical circumstances, we can uphold the idea that we possess sufficient behavioral flexibility to be deemed morally responsible for our actions.
Behavioral flexibility exists along a spectrum. While one person may have a visible brain tumor that constrains their decision-making, another might harbor an undetectable brain anomaly that influences their poor choices. We can conceptualize individuals as having varying degrees of free will; some possess more, others less. Every action is ultimately shaped by influences outside of conscious will—upbringing, unconscious brain processes, and even quantum randomness. However, in terms of individual agency, behavioral flexibility holds enough significance to merit the label "free will." For instance, someone who can actively choose to accept or decline an offer is more flexible and, thus, freer than someone coerced into compliance, even if the ultimate source of every human choice stems from an intricate mix of unconscious influences.
If we could literally rewind time to any moment in our lives and replicate the specific conditions of that moment, we would be unable to make a different choice. Our identical body, brain, and circumstances would dictate the same decision again. But who cares? What truly matters are the choices individuals make under slightly altered conditions. Are you capable of adapting your responses when circumstances shift, or are you perpetually trapped in a pattern of mistakes due to a brain tumor, coercion, or an inability to think rationally? If you resorted to violence because someone insulted you, would you have reacted the same way if they had merely called you "chubby"? If you were fully conscious and capable of reasoning, you might choose not to retaliate. Conversely, if you were sleepwalking, the specific words spoken would likely have no bearing on your actions. In that scenario, your responsibility would be diminished. This form of free will is what truly matters.
The debate is unlikely to reach a conclusion anytime soon, but we should approach such a vital issue as moral responsibility with caution. Do we possess free will? I contend that most of us are sufficiently free to be held accountable for our actions. Yes, we inhabit a deterministic universe, and our behavioral flexibility (or free will, if you prefer) exists along a continuum. Nonetheless, our institutions, especially legal systems, often require binary judgments on whether individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Until we discover a superior framework, we can uphold our current understanding of moral responsibility by evaluating an individual's behavioral flexibility when determining if they acted freely.
Chapter 2: The Role of Free Will in Moral Accountability
The first video examines the arguments both supporting and opposing the concept of free will, providing insights into the philosophical and scientific perspectives on this contentious issue.
The second video discusses how the free will debate transcends the mere concept of free will itself, exploring its implications for moral responsibility and accountability in contemporary society.