Today I want to examine the idea that we do not have free will.
“What nonsense?” One might say. “Of course, we have the will to choose! After all, I chose to read this article instead of the millions of other things I could have done.” I thought like this too until I listened to a presentation by the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. She argued that we do not have free will. However, this does not deprive us of making choices. This is where non-philosophers leave the room.
If you are still here, I hope to simplify her argument while hopefully preserving its pertinent premises. At the same time, I want to play devil’s advocate and explore a world where Free Will does not exist.
Why Free Will is Important
I am probably not qualified to write about this topic, but that is the beauty of this newsletter. I do not claim to know what I am writing about. I do claim to be a student of life and my writing is a means to learn. Alright, disclaimers aside, let’s dive in:
Free Will is the idea that given two options, one has the freedom to choose either. A rational person, given two choices, would know that they have chosen A over B. This knowledge of choice would attribute responsibility to them. The thread of responsibility, woven through their choices, would allow us to say the world is like this because of the choices you made and therefore attribute praise or blame. Seen this way, the products of free will are pride or shame, which are powerful emotions that regulate human behaviour.
But what if we claim that we do not have free will? Would that also remove the emotion of pride and shame? Before attending to that question, it is worth examining the counterargument for free will.
A Case For Having No Free Will
The argument against free will is that there is nothing in the world that does not have a cause. The idea is that everything that is happening now was caused by something else whether that thing knows it or not. Hence, it should be possible (at least theoretically) to trace back all actions to a single event, which is considered The Big Bag. However, what caused The Big Bang? This is where the wheels of causal determinism fall off.
But does this have to do with free will? Think about it this way. If I can choose to do X, then it means I am the cause of X. If we follow the rule of causal determinism, which states that nothing is without cause, then we would have to ask what caused me to choose X. In other words, something else must have caused me to choose X over Y. In such a case, the choice for X over Y was not free, it was determined by something else.
Suppose I were hungry and the options at my disposal were Pizza or a Burger. Those who believe in Free Will would accept that my choice of a Burger was my choice. The counterargue would be that the choice of a burger is influenced by something else. Whether that thing is known to you or not does not remove its existence and ultimately its influence over you. For example, you might have had Pizza yesterday and chose a Burger today. You might have subconsciously seen an advert with a burger and inadvertently bought one without knowing it was placed in your mind, which would prove that the choice was not yours.
A World Without Free Will
Morality is the rational enquiry into what is right and wrong and why it is so. We have already established that Free Will produces praise and blame, which are useful for regulating human affairs. However, where can we find the same regulatory instruments where Free Will is regarded as non-existent?
Perhaps we can look at the world of consequentialism – an ethical theory. Consequentialism, as the name suggests, is only concerned with outcomes. If you have ever heard your boss say they do not care about effort they care about outcomes, then you know they subscribe to consequentialism. Such people tend to be more liberal – they will not care how often you come to work or where you work from. They will only care about results! Furthermore, consequentialism as a theory cares about maximising the good of all people regardless of who they are. This brings up several technicalities that philosophers have debated for time in memorial. For instance, what is deemed good and how do we measure that so-called good?
As you can imagine, philosophy corridors are painted with buckets of intellectual blood spilt from fierce battles for and against consequentialism. Even those believing in consequentialism argue about the definition of good i.e. what ought to be maximised. This has led to the church of Consequentialism splinting into several groups, all defining what is good differently. One of the most prominent of these groups, whose ideas influence most of us and form the backbone of modern society, is utilitarians.
Utilitarians believe that anything that brings happiness is good. It follows that anything that brings the reverse would be deemed bad. The formal definition of happiness in a utilitarian sense is “felt well-being.” Under the proposition of maximising good – utilitarians want to maximise happiness. This is why you need the latest iPhone. More importantly, this is why consumerism is promoted and in many ways, the decline of consumption is regarded as the decay of a society.
Consider these famous words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As you can see, Happiness is enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence. According to these hallowed words, it is wrong to stifle anybody’s pursuit of happiness because you would be taking away their moral right to happiness.
I find that a world without Free Will is compatible with Consequentialism because one would not have to rely on instincts or have to solve dilemmas. Such mental trivialities – given that only results matter – would be set aside and all decisions would be based on anything that would maximise happiness, including running adverts that make us addicted to things we do not need – all in the name of maximising happiness.
The Paradox of Consequentialism
I sat in a seminar about AI last week. The Prof explained that AI does not learn anything and it is not intelligent; it only mimics intelligence. We were given this thought experiment. Suppose that technology had advanced to the point where your late father, mother, sister, friend (anybody special) could be brought back to life. All their mannerisms, quirks – you name it – would be replicated in a machine. From the outside, you would not tell that they are machines even though inside they are computers, their bones made of stainless steel and strung together with a mesh of wires and chips. Question: would you want them back in your life?
Some argued that that would not be the same person and therefore they would not want them back. If you are part of this group, you believe in essentialism. Those who would agree to bring them back because what matters is the outcome (not how it is brought about) believe in consequentialism.
The weakness of consequentialism is it does not care about how things are brought about. They care only about the results. Consider the bombing of Japan during The Second World War, which killed over 200,000 people instantly. The argument was that millions of people were killed during The War and the best way to stop it was wielding a powerful bomb that would kill many people and scare other factions into surrendering. Thus, a decision was taken to flatten Japan, killing scores of people who were not actively involved in the war. Why? Because the ends justified the means.
If we pursue this line of reasoning, we find ourselves in the modern era where our addiction to social media is justified because it provides pleasure. Scrolling for hours, watching memes and occasionally learning something is regarded as happiness-producing and therefore the right thing to do. Of course, this is done regardless of unexpected costs including the exceptional rise in mental health disorders and suicide. As you can see, the unbridled pursuit of happiness creates its own enemy – pain and misery.
What is to be done?
For the record, I am not a consequentialist or a utilitarian. Therefore, I cannot conceive of a world without blame and praise. With that said, the arguments for causal determinism (that everything has a cause) are hard to refute. This is where philosophy becomes a hard pill to swallow. The rule is that if you cannot rationally defend a proposition then you must accept the one offered otherwise you are irrational.
Where do you stand in this debate? Do you believe we have free will or are you in the world of causal determinism? Most of us have an instinctive answer. But considered carefully, one easily finds inconsistencies with whichever side one picks. While many philosophical debates have no conclusive answer, they nevertheless force us to examine our beliefs and arrive at a place (even if it is where we started) that is at least tested by the winds of reason.
Have a great week ahead.
Vusi.
