Free Will, Eee!
Next week, in the Philosophical Questions class, we will begin exploring what’s my favorite of the classic philosophical problems, free will.
There are, as I understand it, two versions.
The theistic one goes: if God is all-knowing, then certainly He knows my every decision so that means my actions are fully determined, thus I can’t have free will.
The materialist version goes: since we are physical systems, all of our alleged “choices” are nothing more than responses to stimuli, all of which are subject to physical laws, so when it comes right down to it, the Big Bang started it all, and ever since, things have just unfolded according to cause and effect laws; thus, I can’t have free will.
I myself am very sympathetic to the second version; as far as I can see, it compels us to accept the conclusion that free will is an illusion, one that we have no choice but to accept anyway—which is small consolation, but then again, we would have to think so.
The practical problem that ensues from our having no free will is well-known: since we can only be held accountable or praised for actions that are freely chosen, then it’s not obvious we can never really be blamed or praised for anything. I like this when I break a dish; I’m not so pleased with it when I help an old lady across the street.
One way out of this problem is to note that even if our actions are determined by God or nature, it’s clear that some of them are more under our control than others: if I hold a gun to your head and ask you to choose between your money or your life, one could argue that your so-called “choice” is not nearly as free as your decision to read this piece which—although it would probably increase my readership to do so—I assume no one forced you to at gunpoint.
There are, as I understand it, two versions.
The theistic one goes: if God is all-knowing, then certainly He knows my every decision so that means my actions are fully determined, thus I can’t have free will.
The materialist version goes: since we are physical systems, all of our alleged “choices” are nothing more than responses to stimuli, all of which are subject to physical laws, so when it comes right down to it, the Big Bang started it all, and ever since, things have just unfolded according to cause and effect laws; thus, I can’t have free will.
I myself am very sympathetic to the second version; as far as I can see, it compels us to accept the conclusion that free will is an illusion, one that we have no choice but to accept anyway—which is small consolation, but then again, we would have to think so.
The practical problem that ensues from our having no free will is well-known: since we can only be held accountable or praised for actions that are freely chosen, then it’s not obvious we can never really be blamed or praised for anything. I like this when I break a dish; I’m not so pleased with it when I help an old lady across the street.
One way out of this problem is to note that even if our actions are determined by God or nature, it’s clear that some of them are more under our control than others: if I hold a gun to your head and ask you to choose between your money or your life, one could argue that your so-called “choice” is not nearly as free as your decision to read this piece which—although it would probably increase my readership to do so—I assume no one forced you to at gunpoint.
posted by Professor Dave at 3:13 PM
2 Comments:
I completely agree that based on the laws of physics free will is an "illusion," but that illusion is sufficient to allow us to consider each other responsible for our own actions. We are, perhaps, not as responsible as the laws of nature, but blaming them never gets us very far. Every time we take an action (or don’t take action) we have the illusion of choice, and so we also have the illusion of responsibility. However, these illusions are so complete, so perfect, that we have no choice but to accept it as real. The reason the illusions are hardly illusions at all are because while the laws of nature dictate that the particles and waves that make us up behave in a deterministic fashion, we are not simply one particle, we are a collection of particles so complex that it is extremely difficult to predict. So for all practical purposes we have free will, and talking about not having free will is just another silly philosophical conundrum like “what if we’re all really just the figments of some beings imagination” or “what if we’re all chained up in a cave watching shadows on the wall.” However, the perceived importance of whether or not we truly have free will or not, leads me to my favorite philosophical topic: moral relativism. Like a lot of people think that it is important that we truly have free will, so a lot of people feel that it is critical that we have a standard of true morality. The argument is similar to the free will argument: without a universal standard morality is an “illusion.” Well, fine, so what, it’s an illusion, but it feels quite real, and we act like it’s real, so why the need to appeal to a deity or some other source of “true” morality? Anyway, that’s just my two cents. I love talking about philosophy. I hope you enjoyed my three twenty seven word comment.
What a smashing comment, Paul. Insightful, wise, and just the right number of words.
Thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home