Free Will and Determinism
One of philosophy’s oldest problems
Many great psychologists have taken explicit positions on this
Determinists: Skinner, Pavlov, Freud, Watson
Free Will: Wm. James, Jung, Rogers, Gordon Allport
Source of controversy and division between humanistic and behavioristic psychologies.
Has important implications for the kind of psychology we embrace.
If human beings have some degree of freedom of choice, then a psychology based on
strict determinism cannot do justice to its subject matter. If there is no freedom of choice
then belief in freedom of choice is unwarranted and may slow progress in understanding
human experience and behavior.
Doctrine of free will: human beings make choices that are, to some degree, independent
of antecedent conditions. Assumes that in some sense the “integrated” personality can
rise above genetic, chemical, physical, social influences. Assumes that people can
anticipate alternatives, weigh possible outcomes of alternative behaviors, and compensate
for past influences that can affect decision-making processes. Behavior may be
predictable to some extent, but there is also an inherent lack of predictability associated
with behavior. To the extent that we can rise above causal forces, we may be viewed as
rational or responsible individuals.
Most will agree that the environment and genetics impose limits, but at some level there
is true spontaneity or randomness. Also: believe that the person is not passive or reactive
but, rather, acts on the environment with awareness and purpose.
Some arguments in support of this position:
1.
Fact: we never have been able to achieve perfect predictions, and it is
probable that we never will be. (E.g., “we don’t write biographies in advance”). There is
not a “good fit” between strict determinism and what we regularly observe – that there is
an apparent spontaneity and unpredictable quality to human behavior.
2.
Logical contradictions in determinism: if determinism is true, then a
determinist cannot logically argue that he or she believes in determinism. Why? See, for
example, Skinner’s “On Having a Poem”. Strict determinism requires a passive
organism.
3.
Argument from morality: determinism makes a mess of morality.
4.
Argument from indeterminism: argument is made that strict determinism
th
is a pre-20 century concept no longer applicable to the physical sciences. With quantum
theory and the Heisenberg Principle, much of the physical world must be viewed from a
probabilistic rather than from a strictly deterministic framework. Reasonable to assume
that there is also an inherent uncertainty about human behavior. [Rebuttal of argument of
indeterminism: even if indeterminism applies at the level of fundamental particles, it is
not applicable to larger physical systems. Thus, while there is indeterminism at the
subatomic level, a physical object (e.g., a chair) is a very reliable and determinate
system.]
Doctrine of determinism: there are causes, both known and unknown, for every behavior
or experience. For everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them,
nothing else could happen. Einstein: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”. “God is
clever, but….not malicious”. May be difficult to discover causes, but the world is lawful
and knowable and with persistence we can make discoveries. (Optimistic side of
determinism: nature is knowable and problems can be solved when cause and effect are
known).
Belief in free will may discourage inquiry—in fact, this belief may be partly responsible
for the late development of psychology as a science.
Rebuttal of argument of indeterminism: even if indeterminism applies at the level of
fundamental particles, it is not applicable to larger physical systems. Thus, while there is
indeterminism at the subatomic level, a physical object (e.g., a chair) is a very reliable
and determinate system.
Some arguments in defense of determinism:
1. Historical argument: the history of the argument is a history of victories for
determinism and retreats for a theory of free will. With increases in knowledge of brain
function, adequate lawful explanations are being extended to include a wide spectrum of
behaviors. The term “will” once occupied a lot of space in psychology textbooks, but as
knowledge has increased there seems to be less need for the term. Over and over,
mechanistic explanations have replaced explanations based on free will.
2. Argument from morality: free will can also make a mess of morality. The late
Renaissance and early modern witch hunts and burnings were often justified on the
grounds that the accused had, of his own free will, made a pact with the devil.
3. Argument from reasonable expectancy: Without determinism there is no
ground for any kind of reasonable expectation. The world is not capricious. Given a
specific set of conditions, we can have a reasonable expectation that the wind will blow
in Ellensburg within a certain period of time. Also, we may reasonably expect to find a
set of conditions that may contribute to an emotional breakdown. We need not attribute
the breakdown to an act of free choice. Most of us live our lives on the basis of
reasonable expectations, and if the expectation is not confirmed, we assume that there
was some variable that we failed to consider.
There are reasonable rebuttals to arguments on both sides, but the point here is that the
issue is a big and important one, and we will revisit it several times during the course.