Lec 16 (2k6) Free will or determinism?
advertisement
1 LEC 16 (2K6) ( 227 - 241 ) FREE WILL OR DETERMINISM? Sunday, January 28, 2007 Childhood version: Twilight Zone stuff One step beyond… If you stay in a hotel to avoid death and then die? PIT BULLS….BRED? OR PERCEPTION? Begin by looking at the importance of free will And then look at the ways in which the notion of free will is challenged MENU We all make decisions all day long We feel it in our very fiber it seems like bedrock It’s so basic that it is difficult to talk about a world without free will Emotionally and linguistically The decisions we have made seem to define who we are How could we even conceive of ourselves without considering choice? 2 ROBERT FROST POEM The road not taken We speak about ourselves and others with a hundred phrases that presuppose free will Please and thank you… I hope… I regret… Could you… Why don’t you… Why did you? If you wouldn’t mind… What do you feel like eating? Where do you want to go on vacation? BIG DECISIONS Sue Zylak baby in red Will you marry me? I do… Our emotional reactions to our experiences also presuppose free will Appreciation for kindnesses Anger at slights or insults Gratitude for favours Pride in our accomplishments Disappointment 3 Regret for mistakes Determination to do better next time If we can’t take credit…if we can’t place blame? Traditional notions of right and wrong, moral goodness or badness, hinge on free will AS RUSSELL SAYS…. If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other. How can religion mean anything if we don’t have free will? How can creativity mean anything? How can Shakespeare mean anything? How can human kindness mean anything? How can the notion of ME and YOU as separate entities mean anything? ….And think of the effect on the advertising industry if free will were not true defended choice : Without freedom there can be no morality. CARL JUNG: Pretty frightening… Without free will there would be no moral difference between what Robert Picton did and what You and I do… 4 No moral difference between Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein But… we already abstain from attaching moral judgments to other parts of the natural world And if we’re only part of the natural world… We don’t blame the hurricane for what happened in New Orleans We don’t blame the wolf for chasing down Bambi We don’t blame the mosquito for biting us…. Angry yes…. But surely we are different than the hurricane and the wolf and the mosquito We are special, no? The notion of free will seems central to the whole human enterprise… And yet, there have been since ancient times some very worrisome challenges to the notion of free will ---------------------------------------------CHALLENGES TO THE NOTION OF FREE WILL…. 1. The challenge from logic: from? Where would freedom come 5 2. The challenge from theology: If God can see the future…..what is there left for us? 3. The challenge from science: Why would we live by different laws than the universe? All these challenges have a long history The logic one at least 2,500 years old Aristotle The theology one is at least 2,000 years old The scientific one: Hellenistic philosophers Democritus and the Epicureans…..and then the Enlightenment We should note how we’re each approaching these challenges Much energy has been used (and will be used in the coming weeks) in the effort to find and explain how the conclusions are wrong… we want them to be wrong… we even need them to be wrong…. Philosophy takes courage…. We will all see in ourselves, the tendency to look at these challenges with the hope of finding a way around them – an answer that will allow freedom back in….because it’s so important to who we are and what we’re about…. And we’re not alone in that hope… 6 DANIEL DENNETT ELBOW ROOM A book about how to make your peace with determinism…. Now, before we proceed to the possible answers We’ll explore one of the challenges… The challenge presented by research into the genetic code… 1956 Movie Patty McCormick THE BAD SEED Dennis Griem -- philosophy major Sat where you’re sitting a few years ago talking about genetic determinism…. Made in 1956 Based on a book, then a play, then the movie Both the book and the play had the mother dying and the evil girl surviving – to kill again, no doubt Censorship laws at the time forced American movies to show that ‘crime doesn’t pay” so the evil Rhoda was struck by lightning A made for TV remake in 1985 restored the original, more disturbing, ending 7 In the ancient world, she would have been considered possessed Evil spirits Demons Exorcism The Exorcist (Catholic Church still does these) Psychology and free will A whole raft of psychologists in the 1800s and 1900s have told us that there is no free will -Not a philosophical viewpoint necessarily FOLLOWERS OF FREUD Our psychological history pushes and pulls us with its unseen strings Our childhood experiences were buried deep within and together with our unconscious drives Other factors IQ B. F. SKINNER and his experiments on pigeons and dogs suggested that we are all merely products of our physical and social environments – reacting on the basis of behaviors learned through positive and negative reinforcements supplied by family, environments, social groups etc….. Our belief in free will is so important to us… 8 We all imagine that we are making choices, that we sometimes influence other people’s choices, that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, that we can teach our values to our children, that we can make a mark in the world, that we can create… All of that goes if free will goes…. Frightening…. AS RUSSELL SAYS…. PSYCHO POSTER… If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other. What sense does it make to punish people for what they were bound to do? Can you spank children when they had no control over that spilled glass of milk? Does it make sense to praise Mother Theresa for her charity work? In common usage, of course, we all assign praise and blame -- to others and ourselves I should have tried harder I don't know why I can't get this That was a great thing you did I wish I could be more outgoing Shape up or ship out But we are also aware that people's actions have a certain predictability 9 He couldn't help himself She always messes that up I know what he will say My mom would never let me do that We couldn't live in a world that was totally arbitrary But most of us also have a hard time living in a world that is totally determined -What is the point then? Why bother with anything? How can anything be good or bad? You might as well just sit in a corner WHY DO PEOPLE DO THE THINGS THEY DO? Human nature – Environment – Psychology – Social factors – Genetics – Questions about why people act the way they do arise all the time We read news stories about street people who are found to have fortunes under their mattresses About rich people who steal from Wal-Mart About poor people who give huge amounts of money to television preachers About priests who abused alter boys for 20 years 10 About people who set themselves on fire to protest social and political conditions (Buddhist Monks during the Vietnam War Jan Palac in Czechoslovakia) remember the man in Waking Life?) About … And the answers come from many places Human nature – that’s just how they were born – Genetic inheritance Physical and psychological Original Sin Personality traits Environment – those are the values they learned at home Parenting Social class Lead poisoning Drugs and alcohol Enriched or impoverished environment Poverty Schooling Opportunities Psychology – the power of the unconscious – the ego and the id Maslow’s hierarchy Phobias and traumas Emotional strengths and weaknesses Social factors – they just didn’t have the advantages… Peer pressure The need to belong Status Fear of failure 11 ------------------------------------------------------- 12 THE PRIMARY QUESTIONS OF THIS SECTION: 1. 2. 3. 4. Are people free to do what they want? Are they free to want what they want? Is it all or nothing? Is there such a thing as moral responsibility? 1. ROUGH DEFINITIONS: (BOX ON PAGE 234 IN TEXT) DETERMINISM The doctrine that every fact in the universe is guided entirely by law. (First posited as a theory of Atomism by Democritus and other Hellenistic philosophers) Everything that happens must happen exactly the way it happens because all matter is governed by laws of cause and effect. That what goes in (heredity and experience) is the only thing that can come out. The doctrine of determinism asserts that in every case, without exception the result is determined by the previous conditions of the subject and the world. INDETERMINISM 13 Theory of the freedom of the will. That people (at least sometimes) have and make real choices That some choices may not be predictable Indeterminists do not insist that there is no coercion or restraint – only that some actions are, indeed, free ---------------------------THIS MATTER OF FREE WILL IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION BECAUSE Determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility…. Although we do allow some aspects of determinism into our personal and legal lives She couldn’t help it It was that strict potty training when she was a baby… What do you expect with parents like that Cut him a little slack – he’s going through a rough time right now Insanity defence Under the influence of drugs Sleepwalking Crimes of deliberation versus crimes of passion Philosophers and theologians have worked hard to find some middle ground 14 soft determinism (aka Compatibilism) many formulations An action is free if and only if its cause is internal to the agent rather than external to the agent. An action is free if and only if it is caused by the agent's beliefs and desires. But again…those problems brainwashing addiction coercion lying The ways in which we are not free internally Manipulated by ourselves – our personality, our intelligence ---------------------------Definitions: COMPATIBILISM (AKA SOFT DETERMINISM) The thesis that both determinism and free action can be true – That it is possible to have free choice even though determinism is true That it is possible to be determined even though free choice is true Allows for moral responsibility in a determined world 15 ------------------------------------------------------------FREEDOM: MERELY LACK OF COMPULSION? So we try to find a definition of free will that takes that into account actions decided on or carried out without compulsion But that’s problematic too Lots of things are obviously compulsion… Physical restraint Danger Force Money Starvation? Threat of starvation? Threat of force? Threat of danger to others? Perceived danger? Perceived force? Psychological compulsion? How many ways are there to be unfree? Physical laws (a leopard cannot will its spots to change) Slavery Ignorance Stupidity Brainwashing Duty 16 Appearances Love of money / lack of money What about compulsive gamblers? What about moral responsibility under these circumstances? Do we blame compulsive shoplifters for shoplifting? Do we blame abused adults for abusing children? Do we blame a man for stealing when he is starving? When his children are starving? What about if he steals food for the moment and money to buy food next week? What if he steals food and cigarettes? Or beer? So we have a hierarchy of motivation (some reasons are good enough) and of severity (it's okay to steal necessities but not desires) Part of this question has to do with theories of morality but part of it has to do with free will So we decide that a person has no free will when he is under compulsion to do something? But does he really have no choice just because someone is pointing a gun at him? Could he not decide to bluster or beg or run? Does he really have no choice when he’s supposed to follow orders? 17 Many armies have said no – obey or risk courtmartial – or death The Nuremberg trials tell us that he is still responsible – following orders doesn’t get you off the hook Does he really have no choice when his children are starving? Could he not beg or borrow? (Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that even when faced with a me/them situation you still bear moral responsibility for your actions) What then can we count as compulsion? When is man free to choose? we always have choices (Viktor Frankl) we always have free will (Sartre) we always experience our will as free (Kant) Does that make it free? (Kant might answer that it doesn’t matter) Is the universal experience of free will an argument for the existence of free will? William James would say YES (the thing that works is the thing that’s true pragmatism (and, perhaps the experience is so strong that deniers bear the burden of proof) 18 Is it a sufficient argument? Many have said NO The insane and the brainwashed experience their free will as much as the normal person ********************************************** These are very old questions Challenges to the notion of free will. Aristotle already wrestled with it. ARISTOTLE’S LOGIC There’s a very famous passage in his On Interpretation (9) where he discusses the logic of free will – particular whether every proposition about the future must be either true or not true. Two definitions: 1) contradiction: a pair of propositions one of which asserts what the other denies Example: It is raining. It is not raining. That boy’s name is Sue. That boy’s name is not Sue The point Aristotle was making is that one must be true – the other false 19 2) Law of the Excluded Middle: of every such contradiction, one member must be true and the other false Aristotle was interested in whether this is also true of propositions about the future HIS EXAMPLE WAS A SEA-BATTLE Two propositions: 1) 2) There will be a sea-battle tomorrow. There will not be a sea-battle tomorrow. The Law of the excluded middle would say that one of these statements is true and the other false And that goes for today as well – one of them is true today …. Although we don’t know which one… If (1) is true today, then nothing can be done between today and tomorrow to change its truth There can’t be a peace treaty The ships can’t leave The people who fight the battle can’t die ahead of time Nothing can change its truth because if the battle didn’t happen, then the statement was never true If (2) is true today, then nothing can be done between today and tomorrow to change its truth No one can start a battle 20 No provocation will be good enough No one can make a fight happen Because otherwise, (2) was not true today ORANGE JUICE EXAMPLE 1) 2) TWO PROPOSITIONS I will drink orange juice tomorrow I will not drink orange juice tomorrow One of these statements is true One is false “Law of excluded middle” says there is no other alternative (Fernando Botero Man drinking orange juice) If (1) is true now, nothing I do can change that (or it’s not true now) If (2) is true now, nothing I do in the meantime can change its truth Now, we might think that we can make that choice tomorrow That we can go and buy orange juice today – we can pour a glass and wait for midnight and drink it, to prove the statement wrong But then the statement was never true Aristotle knows of course, that we can’t today know which propositions will be true tomorrow But he seems to have proven that, logically, what happens must happen – must always have happened that way… Because we can’t change the past….. 21 Nothing is possible except what actually happens There are no probabilities, no ‘unactualized’ possibilities What happens tomorrow mandates the truth of one of the statements – and So, what happens must happen ‘of necessity’ Otherwise we would have to give up the law of the excluded middle If it is true that either a sea battle will take place or it won’t (and it’s hard to argue for something in between) then we are left with the logical problem of the connection between the statement and the event one of the two statements about the sea battle was ‘of necessity’ true (law of the excluded middle) but only one – the other can never have been a possibility (it doesn’t matter to the logic of this that ‘we’ can’t know ahead of time which was true – ) It doesn’t even matter that we never pondered or asked or predicted One of the two statements is ‘of necessity’ true and one false And IF it is true the day it happens, the statement about it was true the day before And nothing can have been done to change it (otherwise it wasn’t true) 22 And that truth is stuck in the past now – It’s obvious from our standpoint (2500 years later) that what actually happened confirmed the truth of one of the statements What happened confirmed that statement true – **** But then it was already true the day before If it was already true, nothing else could have happened If it’s true about the sea-battle, it is true of everything ------------------------------And it is true backwards and forwards in time That sea-battle either took place or it didn’t Nothing we know or don’t know about it 2500 years later changes the facts Nothing in the past can change The truth of one statement and the other is in the past And it was in the past the day before any man knew whether there was a sea-battle or not ARISTOTLE’S DISTURBING CONCLUSION? Nothing is possible except what actually happens ---------------------------------------There are a variety of responses to the conclusion 23 ARISTOTLE’S SOLUTION Finding his way back from the abyss One is explained in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) Aristotle backs up a bit and looks again at the law of the excluded middle – that in any pair of contradictory statements, one must be true and the other false He suggests that sometimes, for particular statements about the future, there might be no necessity to posit truth or falsity -Law of bivalence: that any proposition must be either true or false… Aristotle is willing, perhaps, to throw out that law in these particular cases where truth or falsity is a function of what actually happens He rejects the law of bivalence: every proposition is either true or false He accepts that some propositions are true at some times but not at others 24 SCHROEDINGER’S CAT UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE (Copenhagen interpretation) And the connection to Quantum Physics Indeterminacy It’s not just that we don’t know whether the cat is dead or alive It’s that the cat is neither dead nor alive until observed What counts as observation? Camera? God? I’ll let you search out other outs ….. THE CHALLENGE FROM THEOLOGY Up until the Enlightenment, theology taught that God gave people free will so that they would have to choose between the good and the bad Remember that this exact point is one of the commonly given explanations for the existence of evil in a god-created world The Soul-Making theodicy -- earlier lecture…. That this world is a test – that God created man with the potential for evil because otherwise our choice to be good would have no meaning 25 Evil comes into existence, then, through man’s choice But the question of the omnipotence and omniscience of God is also problematic… (how can God know everything unless it is predetermined? If our actions or thoughts could truly be ours and not known until the moment of our choice, God could not know everything) (you can’t have it both ways) FATALISM Determinism with a theological bent. That God predetermines all human activity What it is :: Predestination is the doctrine that God has decided and fixed beforehand what will happen. This applies to all events in the world. God has his plan for all of creation set up and he will bring it to completion (Eph. 1:11). But the Bible particularly focuses on the predestination of God's people. That is, God has chosen some people to be saved before the world was created. This is the clear teaching of Scripture: "For he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" Ephesians 1:4-5, NIV The Protestant doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, first set out by Martin Luther, led to many new theological problems. (See Faith or Works). What exactly was "Saving Faith"? Was there any way of knowing for certain that you were really "saved"? Once saved by Faith, could you lose that salvation by sinning or falling away? What was the merit in a single act of belief that, on its own, gained you eternal Paradise? Many of the deeper-thinking Reformers began to find that Luther's theories provided few satisfactory answers. A FEARSOME DOCTRINE Geneva Reformer John Calvin, developed a doctrine that tried to solve all these problems without relying on the need for sinners to do Good 26 Works to gain salvation. He found his answer in the harsh doctrine of Predestination. It had been held by many of the Church Fathers, particularly Augustine, that God, being Omniscient, knew the future, and therefore knew in advance who would be saved. This was predestination. Calvin extended and refined this idea, stating that God not only knew what choice every person would make in his life, God had actually decided what choices everyone would make. Individuals had no choice in this. Human Free Will was only an illusion. Therefore God had decided that certain people would live a Christian Life and be saved. He had also decided that the rest would sin and be eternally damned. If you were predestined to be damned there was nothing you could do about it. God's will was Sovereign. All Humans were "totally depraved" and unable to do anything to help themselves. God's salvation was a gift of Grace that He bestowed on who He chose. Christ died, not to save everyone, but only to save a chosen, predestined "elect." WHY DID CALVIN NEED SUCH AN EXTREME THEOLOGY? He needed to deal with a lot of problems left over by Luther. If doing Good Works couldn't save us, what was the merit in a simple Act of Faith? And anyway wasn't making an Act of Faith, also a Good Work? What about people who claimed to be Born Again, and then did evil? Systematic academic theologians demanded a coherent, logical solution. Calvin based his system on God's Grace. The Elect were saved, solely by God's grace (or favour), not by their own choice. An Act of Faith was needed, but God had decided through irresistable Grace to make the Elect perform this. Not everyone who made the Act of Faith was among God's Elect, so some people who accepted Jesus would still be damned along with everyone else who was not among the Elect. God had therefore, according to Calvin, created millions of people who would be damned for eternity through no fault of their own. The whole system was logically more watertight than Luther's but at the penalty of being incredibly harsh. BUT SURELY THIS THEORY DIDN'T GAIN WIDE ACCEPTANCE? Curiously enough, it did. Calvinist theology spread rapidly, and became the basis for many protestant denominations. These included the Swiss Reformed Church, The Dutch Reformed Church, The English Puritans, The French Huguenots, The Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, The Baptist Churches, and through them the Pentecostal Churches and Assemblies of God. --------------------------------------THE CHALLENGE FROM SCIENCE Page 229 outlines the basic form of the determinist argument 27 it follows from the mechanistic formulations about the laws of nature which followed from the scientific discoveries of the Enlightenment…. A syllogism About which we can say is it valid? Is it true? Soundness requires both validity and truth HARD DETERMINIST ARGUMENT P 229 Syllogisms Defined as an argument such that if its premises are true, it’s conclusion has to be accepted Airtight, in other words Every event has its explanatory cause. Every human choice or action is an event. Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory cause Every human choice or action has its explanatory cause. To have explanatory causes is not to be free. Therefore, no human choice or action is free. Many formulations use the term sufficient explanatory cause… Remember when we talked about necessary and sufficient causes? 28 Sufficient causes are those which can bring something into existence by themselves… Make something happen by themselves If the explanatory causes are sufficient in themselves in explaining, then there is no necessity to add other factors Perhaps no opportunity…. No sense in trying… --------------------------------------------------------HARD DETERMINISM Determinist Tenets: A. Every event has a cause, and so B. No one ever acts freely. An Argument for Hard Determinism: 1. People are wholly a part of nature. 2. Every event in nature is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws. 3. If (1) & (2), then every event involving people is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws. 4. If every event involving people is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws, then no one ever acts freely 5. Therefore, no one ever acts freely. (after Partee) Validity? Soundness? (validity and truth) What objections could we have to this valid argument? 29 Premise 1-- Perhaps people are not wholly natural -- the mind /body problem. Premise 2-- This is hard for non-physicists to prove or disprove. In general it is thought that Newtonian Physics proved this, but more recent physicists suggest that there is unpredictability in the universe (but is unpredictability the same as free will? Hardly…) Premise 3-- Logical. Premise 4-- Soft Determinists insist that the opposite is at least a possibility ******************************************** Opposing Arguments (Arguments for the existence of Free Will) Argument from feeling of freedom 1. Sometimes I feel that my actions are free. 2. If sometimes I feel that my actions are free, then sometimes I act freely. 3. If sometimes I act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. Premise (2) can be rejected on the grounds that it is not inconceivable that you might feel free at the same time that your action is determined (that pesky insanity and brainwashing thing…). The hard determinist thinks that in fact, there are many times 30 when you are unaware of the determining factors, and this gives you the false sense of freedom. Argument from choice 1. Sometimes we choose an action. 2. If sometimes we choose an action, then sometimes we act freely. 3. If sometimes we act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. Premise (2) can be rejected on the grounds that all choices (being events that fall under the principle of universal causation) are determined, and so choosing actions does not necessitate freedom. Choosing when there is really no other option because of factors we aren’t aware of…. Like elections where there is only one candidate… although you can choose not to vote or to spoil your ballot… Argument from self-control 1. Sometimes I choose contrary to my desires. 2. If sometimes I choose contrary to my desires, then sometimes I act freely. 3. If sometimes I act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Again, premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. The hard determinist rejects the second premise on the grounds that you choose contrary to your desires only in the cases when you have some stronger desire which counteracts the first. In such cases you are determined to choose contrary to the first desire. 31 (If you choose to study instead of party when you really want to party – you chose to study because your desire to do well or your fear of failure overcame your desire to party) INDETERMINISM KEY INDETERMINIST TENETS: The principle of universal causation is false (i.e. not every event has a cause). People sometimes act freely. People are morally responsible for their free actions and the consequences of those actions. That free choice and moral responsibility issue brings the indeterminists out of the woodwork So much depends on it… Social engineering (anti-smoking etc.) The self-improvement industry depends on it Crime and punishment (even spanking and time-out) Religious proselytizing Even philosophy…. 32 INDETERMINIST ARGUMENT FROM MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 1. People are sometimes morally responsible for their actions 2. If people are sometimes morally responsible for their actions, then people sometimes act freely. 3. If people sometimes act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Another valid argument? Is it also true? Premise 1. Hard Determinists will not accept this premise as true contradicts the Hard Determinists final premise… (that there is no moral responsibility because there is no freedom) contradicts this) The libertarian says that the contrary view is an unacceptable consequence of a misguided theory. Of course people are morally responsible for some of their actions, e.g. premeditated cold-blooded murder, for example! In choosing between the principle of universal causation and moral responsibility, moral responsibility wins out. Premise (2) is accepted by both the hard determinist and the libertarian. The only way someone can be held morally responsible for an action is if they were free either to do or not to do the action. If a person has no true option (i.e. is not free), then they cannot be held morally responsible 33 Corliss Lamont: Freedom, Choice and Human Responsibility (Paraphrased) LAMONT'S ARGUMENTS FOR INDETERMINISM - Our intuition that our choices are free is so strong that it places the burden of proof on the determinist to show that they are not (43). - According to determinism, under the law we must view virtuous actions in the same way we view actions of insanity: the agent had no choice, but was compelled to act in a certain way. But we can't and don't view them that way, so determinism must be false (45). - Many words such as regret, forbearance, and self-restraint lose their meaning under determinism. Our use of these words suggest that we should believe in indeterminism (456). - Moral responsibility only makes sense if indeterminism is true (46.) Lamont, like James, admits that much in our lives – the life of the world – is determined…. But he only goes so far as to say that the events of the past condition the future but conditioning is not determinism Reductio ad absurdum -- If our choices and actions today were predetermined by the events of yesterday, then they were seemingly predetermined at the beginning of time -- and that would be absurd 34 SOFT DETERMINISM And what shall we say about psychology? W. T. Stace (Philosophy: The Basic Issues, 1986) argues that philosophers have historically defined free will incorrectly -- and that if the real definition were worked out, we could all agree that man does indeed have free will He begins by reminding us that even philosophers and psychologists who deny the existence of free will live their daily lives as though they and those around them had free will. They ask their wives where they would like to go for dinner just like everyone else They punish their kids for lying just like everyone else From this he concludes that their defense of determinism in their professional lives is somehow just a game -- a semantic problem (Something like this came up in the study of Reality as well – metaphysics – Leibniz didn’t stop talking to his neighbours after he theorized monads) If it’s a semantic problem, maybe a little re-definition? If we just had the right definition we would see that free will does exist Problems? 35 He goes on to define free acts as those for which no outside cause exists Acts that stem from internal or psychological feelings, wishes, fears, Stace’s formulation of soft determinism Acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent. Acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent. W. T. Stace So where would he draw the line of moral responsibility? He does admit that there are some problems with his formulation What about the subtle difference between force and fear of force? Isn't fear an internal state -- an emotion? And a subject he doesn't address -What about retardation? Insanity? Immaturity? Are they not internal factors? But these are exactly the people we absolve from responsibility for their actions 36 (this section loosely based upon Partee’s lec on determinism) http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~dmpartee/phil100u/free Look again at the incompatibility argument: THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL CAUSATION (worded slightly differently from the original) 1. Every event has a cause. 2. If every event has a cause, then every current action is part of a causal chain of events stretching back far into the past. 3. If every current action is part of a causal chain of events stretching back far into the past, then no one ever acts freely. 4. If no one ever acts freely, then people are not morally responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. 5. Therefore, people are not morally responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. This valid argument shows that if determinism is true, then people are not morally responsible for their actions. But the soft determinist will reject premise 3 and insist that, even though every action is part of a causal chain of events, people still sometimes act freely! (end of Partee) 37 ANOTHER FORMULATION OF SOFT DETERMINISM A. Every event has an antecedent cause, but nonetheless B. People do sometimes act freely. The soft determinist is still a determinist—believes in the principle of universal causation. But doesn’t agree that that entails that we are never free, nor that we are never morally responsible for our actions. -------------------------------------------THE DISTINCTION BEING MADE HERE Causal agents can be either external or internal When the causal agent is external (either impedance or constraint), the act is considered determined (you have no freedom to move your arm when it is tied to your side, for example) When the causal agent is internal (psychological states, desires, volitions etc.), then the act is considered free (you might beat your child because you were beaten, but you are still morally responsible for your actions) 38 The Point being made here… that the freedom relevant to moral responsibility is freedom from compulsion or restraint (not freedom from causation). That both the hard determinist and the indeterminist make a mistake in defining "freedom" as freedom from causation. ** Stace has said: It's OK to define freedom that way, but it is making the same sort of mistake that we would be making if we defined "person" to be a five legged animal, and then claimed that there were no people [after Stace]. So they mistakenly define freedom as freedom from causation and then can't find any freedom (because obviously everything is caused) But if you ask whether the internal wishes, desires and volitions are not themselves caused (they did, after all, agree that everything was caused) They merely suggest that that is an improper question 39 But it is a good question: Given that I acted in response to my inner desires, wishes etc, could I in fact have decided differently? I appear to have chosen what I wanted. But could I have wanted something different? 40 Soft determinists don't want to answer this question Psychoanalysts would say no: my unconscious rules my conscious life And my unconscious developed claws before my conscious ever had a chance It operates behind my conscious life -- sending instructions, reminders, even ordering me around (purple prose, but some would say accurate) Soft Determinists like to have it both ways The devil made you do it, but you are still morally responsible But is this a satisfactory formulation? Can they just say that beyond this point the question doesn't make sense? Aren't soft determinists cutting off the debate arbitrarily and refusing to ask further? SELF-DETERMINISM The idea that man can author his own future -- that at least some of his actions begin with him -- (somewhere between soft determinism and indeterminism) 41 Attractive, but, again, there are problems This view requires us to posit a self as agent -- a self which is more than a collection of things or events And it requires us to imagine man as a prime mover -- a substance which can cause an event And we’ve already looked at some of the difficulties there (in the lecture on the self) Spinoza on Free Will (17th C) In the nature of things nothing contingent is admitted, but all things are determined by the necessity of divine nature to exist and act in a certain way" (ETHICS Part 1 Proposition 29) "Men think themselves free, insofar as they are conscious of their wishes and desires, and are ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire..." Our thoughts and actions are entirely determined by God, that is by the whole complex system of nature that surrounds us and of which we form an integral part. Everything is determined by everything else. 42 God is certainly free inasmuch as the deity cannot be beholden to anyone or anything else. But "Things could not have been produced by God in any other manner or order other than that in which they were produced." (ETHICS Part 1 Proposition 33) So it appears that God is only free to be God. The actual world is the only possible world; the possible cannot be wider than the actual; what you see is what you get. “Nothing therefore happens in nature which is contrary to universal laws. Nor does anything happen which does not agree with those laws or does not follow from them." Spinoza Kant’s views on free will and responsibility Each of us is subjected daily and hourly to a stream of raw data (coming from the outside world which we never experience directly) never experience das ding an sich This data is shaped by our sensory apparatus before we are aware of it Shaped to meet our expectations Including those of time and space And cause and effect 43 In fact, the shaped data is all we can be aware of We see the world human-like Bats see the world batlike Whales and dolphins see the world whale and dolphin like We create our own reality in order to understand it We use concepts like continuity, cause and effect to further understand the objective world Kant argues that we do this in order to bring order out of chaos – to be able to think and speak and reason If we suddenly had a bat’s sensory apparatus, we could not make sense of the world This distinction between the world and the way we see the world is relevant to a discussion of free will Kant is a determinist He argues that every event must have a cause – or we couldn’t fit it into our time frame – cause and effect is what organizes time But -- this cause and effect is only an organizing principle and does not need to exist in the world the way it really is So – you in yourself might have free will 44 But you as one among many entities in the conceptualized world are bound by determinism It follows then that You in yourself are morally responsible because not caused The empirical you (on the other hand) is determined (but you don’t experience it that way) (diff between pure reason and practical reason) When you are making choices, you must think of yourself as free (it’s the only thing that works) But that freedom evaporates under the necessity of empiricism (because we organize experience causally) There’s a serious problem here The people we want to hold responsible for evil moral choices are the empirical people we deal with in the here and now But Kant says that only the people as they really are are accountable (he glosses over this problem by asserting that empirical people are Based on people as they are in themselves – and presumably can be punished in their stead?) Locke had said that we punish the bodies because we cannot see the mind – we leave that to God 45 Jean-Paul Sartre We are condemned to be free. Existence precedes essence. If we allow that genetic, psychological, environmental and social factors limit or deny our freedom Then essence precedes existence Sartre argues that while those factors have to be taken into account, they cannot override our responsibility to choose who we are There is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose. We ‘ve seen all along that the issue of free will and determinism is intertwined with that of morality We will see this again in a future lecture Leave you with the words of Viktor Frankl (Superman pictures) 46 “No matter what the circumstances we find ourselves, we always retain the last of human freedoms – the ability to choose one’s attitude in a given set of circumstances.” 47 Copyright © Norman Swartz 1997 URL http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill3.htm November 9, 1997 Department of Philosophy Simon Fraser University These notes may be freely reproduced, in whole or in part, provided the copyright notice and URL (above) are preserved on the copy. Any other reproduction is illegal. LECTURE NOTES ON FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM Causal Determinism (or, Physical Determinism) Paradoxes of Freedom We will begin with two views that are so antithetical to one another that we can properly speak of them as being paradoxical. The problem is that many persons find themselves inclined to subscribe to both views (or, more exactly, to the premises and conclusions of both of the following arguments). Argument #1 - There is No Moral Responsibility Premise 1 - Every action is either caused or uncaused (i.e. a random occurrence). Premise 2 - If an action is caused, then that action was not chosen freely and the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done. Premise 3 - If an action is uncaused (i.e. is a random occurrence), then the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done. Thus - We are not morally responsible for what we do. The conclusion of this argument (that there is no moral responsibility) is unsettling, indeed for many persons, it is frightening. But, in addition to its psychological effects, there is a logical problem insofar as the foregoing argument seems to have presuppositions which are at odds with the following line of argumentation: Argument #2 - Causal Determinism is a Necessary Condition for Moral Responsibility Premise 1 - Unless there are extenuating circumstances, persons are (to be) held morally responsible for their actions. Premise 2 - Being unable reasonably to have foreseen the consequences of their actions is one such extenuating circumstance. (Recall that young children who cannot reasonably foresee the consequences of their actions are not to be held morally responsible for the consequences.) 48 Premise 3 - In order to be able to anticipate or foresee the likely (or even the remotely likely) consequences of one's actions, the world must not be random, i.e. the world must be fairly regular (or causally determined). Thus - Moral responsibility requires that there be causal determinism. The conclusion of the Argument #2 can be put another way: Causal determinism is [contrary to premise 2 of Argument #1] not only compatible with free will, it is a necessary condition of free will! The 'logical tension' between these competing views is intolerable. There has to be some error somewhere in these two arguments. My own view is that the error occurs in premise 2 of Argument #1. I will argue (below) that it is false that causal determinism makes free will non-existent. (I will argue that both arguments are valid, but only the second is sound [i.e. all of its premises are true]. The first argument, while valid, has a false premise, thus making that argument unsound.) For me to try to show this, I will have to examine more closely the concept of what it is for an event or an action to be caused. Laplace's View In his Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (1814), the French astronomer and mathematician, Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827) wrote: An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before our eyes. By "all the forces that animate Nature", Laplace means "the laws of nature". And by "[knowing] the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it [i.e. Nature]", Laplace means "having a 'snapshot' description of the position and motion (at some instant of time) of every object in the universe". This view -- which, naturally, came to be called "Laplacian Determinism" -- was widely adopted by many scientists and philosophers until early in the Twentieth Century. It is the view that the entire future course of the universe is 'laid out' as a consequence of two factors: (1) the laws of nature, and (2) the state of the universe at any one moment of time. Of course only a 'vast intellect' (presumably God) would be able to handle so much data; no human being, even with the largest computer available, could perform the 49 calculation. Laplace's claim was intended merely to explain the 'principles' by which the universe operates; he did not believe, nor has anyone (that I know of since) believed that we human beings could perform the calculation. But our inability to perform the calculation notwithstanding, the philosophical view remains: the future course of the universe, our own behavior (choices, actions, etc.) included, is completely determined by the laws of nature and the state of the universe at any one moment. 50 Example of a Scientific Explanation According to Laplacian Determinism, in principle (although not always in practice) whatever happens (whether physical, chemical, biological, social, economic, psychological, geological, etc.) is to be accounted-for by citing the natural laws of the universe and antecedent (and sometimes prevailing) conditions. Let's look at an example (or more exactly, the sketch or outline of an example). We'll assume that your car radiator has cracked. (This example is a famous one, created by Carl Hempel.) How did that come about? There are two kinds of 'components' in the explanation (the two that Laplace highlighted). Natural Laws 1.The breaking strength of brass is ... 2.Brass contracts m% in having its temperature lowered from +2o Celsius to -6o Celsius. 3.Water expands n% on freezing. 4.The freezing point of water is 0o Celsius. 5.etc. Antecedent Conditions A.The radiator in your car is made of brass. B.The outside temperature last night fell from +4o Celsius to -11o Celsius, and remained at that low temperature for 7 hours. C.The car was parked in the driveway with no protective cover. D.The car radiator was full of water. E.There was no antifreeze in the radiator. F.The radiator was sealed. G.etc. Conclusion The radiator cracked. --------------------------------------------------------------------------The same model (account) holds for human behavior. Suppose that John has bought Claudia a bouquet of flowers. How can we explain this behaviour? Natural Laws 1.Whenever persons of personality type G437 learn of a desire of their loved ones, they try to satisfy that desire. 2.etc. Antecedent Conditions A.John and Claudia are lovers. B.Claudia has told John that she would like a bouquet of flowers. C.John has the money and opportunity to buy a bouquet of flowers. 51 D.John has personality type G437. E.etc. Conclusion John buys Claudia a bouquet of flowers. There seems - in this account of the way the universe 'works' - to be no opportunity for the exercise of free choice. (See premise #2 [above] in Argument #1, "There is No Moral Responsibility".) The Natural Laws are 'given' (i.e. not of our choosing); and the antecedent conditions, equally, are 'given' (i.e. not of our choosing). Our behaviour is completely 'causally determined' by the laws of nature and antecedent conditions. There is no 'room', in this account, it would appear, for free choice. 52 LEC 18 FREE WILL OR DETERMINISM? (240 TO 255) If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other. Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian) Acts freely done are those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent. Acts not freely done are those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent. W. T. Stace The Incompatibility of Moral Responsibility and Universal Causation 1. Every event has a cause. 2. If every event has a cause, then every current action is part of a causal chain of events stretching back far into the past. 3. If every current action is part of a causal chain of events stretching back far into the past, then no one currently has control over what events take place. 4. If no one currently has control over what events take place, then people are not morally responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. 5. Therefore, people are not morally responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. (after Partee) An Argument for Hard Determinism: 1. People are wholly a part of nature. 2. Every event in nature is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws. 3. If (1) & (2), then every event involving people is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws. 4. If every event involving people is determined by necessary and immutable natural laws, then no one ever acts freely 5. Therefore, no one ever acts freely. (after Partee) 53 Opposing Arguments Argument from feeling of freedom 1. Sometimes I feel that my actions are free. 2. If sometimes I feel that my actions are free, then sometimes I act freely. 3. If sometimes I act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. Premise (2) can be rejected on the grounds that it is not inconceivable that you might feel free at the same time that your action is determined. The hard determinist thinks that in fact, there are many times when you are unaware of the determining factors, and this gives you the false sense of freedom. Argument from choice 1. Sometimes we choose an action. 2. If sometimes we choose an action, then sometimes we act freely. 3. If sometimes we act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. Premise (2) can be rejected on the grounds that all choices (being events that fall under the principle of universal causation) are determined, and so choosing actions does not give anyone freedom. Argument from self-control 1. Sometimes I choose contrary to my desires. 2. If sometimes I choose contrary to my desires, then sometimes I act freely. 3. If sometimes I act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. Again, premises (1) and (3) are clearly true. The hard determinist rejects the second premise on the grounds that you choose contrary to your desires only in the cases when you have some stronger desire which counteracts the first. In such cases you are determined to choose contrary to the first desire. (after Partee) 54 INDETERMINIST ARGUMENT FROM MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 1. People are sometimes morally responsible for their actions 2. If people are sometimes morally responsible for their actions, then people sometimes act freely. 3. If people sometimes act freely, then hard determinism is false. 4. Therefore, hard determinism is false. ONE FORMULATION OF SOFT DETERMINISM A. Every event has an antecedent cause, but nonetheless B. People do sometimes act freely. The soft determinist is still a determinist-- believes in the principle of universal causation. But doesn't agree that that entails that we are never free, nor that we are never morally responsible for our actions. Self determination: The problem of human freedom is confused somewhat by the distinction between the self and the will. The will is only the self in its active side and freedom of the will really means freedom of the self. It is determination by the self. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan 55 QUOTATIONS Free Will Free will is but an illusion. Anatole France There is no such thing as free will. The mind is induced to wish this or that by some cause, and that cause is determined by another cause, and so on back to infinity. Spinoza, 1677 I confess that mankind has a free will, but it is to milk kine, to build houses, etc., and no further. Martin Luther Freedom The instinct of nearly all societies is to lock up anyone who is truly free. Jean Cocteau I have never been free. The world, my kin, my neighbours have always enslaved me. Edgar Watson Howe A hungry man is not a free man. Adlai Stevenson The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. H. L. Mencken Man is condemned to be free. Jean Paul Sartre He alone is free who lives with free consent under the entire guidance of reason. Benedict Spinoza 1670 We have to believe in our free will: we have no choice in the matter.
