Free Will
Agenda
• What is Free Will? The “Authorship
Slogan”
• Why think we don’t have it? The Evil
Scientist Argument
• The standard philosophical positions:
Compatibilism, Incompatibilism,
Libertarianism, and Hard Determinism.
Our Question
• Our question is, Do we have free will?
I don’t
understand.
• What is “free will” supposed to be?
What is a will?
What sort of freedom is at issue?
• I propose to table these questions until
later.
• … So let’s just change the subject.
A Picture of Action
The “Standard Picture” of Action:
Whenever an agent acts, there are
three distinct elements
I want to…,
I choose to…,
I plan to...
Cause
1. The psychological sources
of the action
Causes
2. The action itself
3. The consequences
of the action
Authorship of actions
SLOGAN: We are the authors of our
actions.
This is a METAPHOR! Philosophers
use these all the time, but they can
mislead.
Think: “What does the metaphor mean in
literal terms?”
Chasing down the parallel
Authorship of
books
Explanation
Responsibility
Certain text & pictures
appear in a book
because those text &
pictures are what the
author chose, decided,
etc., to include.
The author is responsible
for the content of the
book. If there’s racism in
there, she’s responsible.
If there’s beauty or insight
in there, she’s
responsible.
“Authorship” of
actions
You acted as you did
because you chose,
decided, etc., to do so.
You are responsible for your
actions. If it was cruel or
wicked for you to do what
you did, you’re responsible.
If it was brave, you’re
responsible.
The Authorship slogan interpreted
The Authorship Slogan: If an agent P
performs an action A, then:
1) Any full explanation for why P
performed A must include her
choices, etc.; and
2) P bears responsibility for A.
This will be my
focus
Free Will = Authorship
•
•
•
Proposal: replace “Do we have free will?” with “Are
we ever the ‘authors’ of our actions?”
This means we stop asking, “Do we have free will?”
Instead we ask:
1. Are our choices, etc., ever part of the full explanation for why
we perform our actions?
2. Are we ever responsible for an action we perform?
If the answer to either question is ‘no’, then we will
conclude:
We don’t have free will.
Agenda
• What is Free Will? The “Authorship
Slogan”
• Why think we don’t have it? The Evil
Scientist Argument
• The standard philosophical positions:
Compatibilism, Incompatibilism,
Libertarianism, and Hard Determinism.
The Evil Scientist Argument
I want to show why there might be a
problem for “authorship.”
STRATEGY:
(1) Propose a case in which it is utterly
clear that the agent is not the “author” of
his action.
(2) Give reasons why we might think our
situation is exactly similar.
Meet Al and the Evil Scientist
Evil Scientist
Al
The Evil Scientist Scenario
I hereby
choose to
raise my arm!
electrode in the brain + forced choice
• Is Al the “author” of his action?
Who cares about the Evil Scientist
Scenario?
• That’s too bad for Al, but what does this have to
do with us?
• Control by external forces:
 Al
 Addiction
• Some people used to think that we are all
in Al’s situation (and the addict’s, too):
what we want is determined by external
forces.
Universal Determinism
Definitions:
a total state of the universe: a description of
how things are that leaves no detail out, no
matter how specific.
Universal Determinism: The total state of the
universe at a time t determines the total state of
the universe at every time after t; it is
impossible that the universe evolve in any
other way.
Determinism and the thin red line
According to Universal Determinism:
Where you can get depends only on where
you start:
Your life
Your birth
time
The entire course of
your life is determined
by how things were a
long time before you
were born.
green start
red start
The actual initial state
of the universe
The Evil Scientist Argument for
Incompatibilism
1) Descriptive Premise: In the Evil Scientist
Scenario, Al is not the “author” of his actions.
In particular, Al is not responsible for what he
does.
2) Analogy Premise: If Universal Determinism is
true, our situation is exactly like Al’s in all
relevant respects.
Incompatibilism: If Universal Determinism is true,
then we are never the “authors” of our actions.
In particular, we are not responsible for what
we do.
Spinoza Said It Best
Baruch Spinoza, Letter to G.H. Schaller (The
Hague, October 1674) (trans. by R. Elwes):
[E]very individual thing is necessarily determined by some external
cause to exist and operate in a fixed and determinate manner.
Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion,
should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring,
as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious
merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe
itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in
motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human
freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists
solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire,
but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been
determined
Agenda
• What is Free Will? The “Authorship
Slogan”
• Why think we don’t have it? The Evil
Scientist Argument
• The standard philosophical positions:
Compatibilism, Incompatibilism,
Libertarianism, and Hard Determinism.
Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Compatibilism: “Authorship” of actions (i.e.
“free will”) is compatible with Universal
Determinism.
Incompatibilism: If Universal Determinism
is true, then we are never the “authors” of
our actions.
[Note: The argument just presented is an
argument for Incompatibilism.]
2 Kinds of Incompatibilism
Hard Determinism: Universal Determinism is
true; so we do not have free will.
Libertarianism: We have free will; so Universal
Determinism is false.
[Note: The Hard Determinist and the Libertarian
agree about the incompatibility of Universal
Determinism and “authorship”.]
Summary of philosophical positions
YES
Universal Determinism and
“authorship” compatible?
Compatibilism
NO
YES
“Authorship”
?
NO
Hard Determinism
Libertarianism
Hume’s Theory
• David Hume (1711 - 1776)
• Hume is a Compatibilist: he believed that we
“author” our actions, despite the fact that
everything is determined by circumstances that
obtained before our birth.
Hume’s View
“[A]ll men have ever agreed in the doctrine
both of necessity and of liberty, according
to any reasonable sense.” (para. 3)
• The Doctrine of Necessity: All human
motives, decisions, and actions are
determined (necessitated) by their causes.
• The Doctrine of Liberty: All who are not
physically restrained have liberty (i.e. “free
will”).
Agenda
• Hume’s Positive Arguments: first
articulate (and criticize) Hume’s
arguments for his own views.
• Hume’s Defense: then articulate (and
criticize) Hume’s defense against the Evil
Scientist Argument.
Hume has two positive
arguments
Hume’s Positive Arguments: first articulate
(and criticize) Hume’s arguments for his own
views.
1. The argument for the Doctrine of Necessity.
2. The argument for the Doctrine of Liberty.
Causation and Necessitation
• Hume holds that the relation of cause-andeffect is necessitating.
• Causes Necessitate: If an event C
causes an event E, then it is impossible
that C should have occurred, and E not.
Hume’s Challenge:
“Let any one define a cause, without comprehending, as
a part of the definition, a necessary connexion with its
effect … and I shall readily give up the whole
controversy.” (para. 25)
Hume: Causes Necessitate
A possible situation?
The actual situation
effect
effect
8
8
IMPOSSIBLE!
cause
Any possible
situation in which
C occurs must be
a situation in
which E also
occurs.
cause
Human Actions and Decisions
are Caused
[A] prisoner, when conducted to the scaffold, foresees his
death as certainly from the constancy and fidelity of his
guards, as from the operation of the axe or wheel. His
mind runs along a certain train of ideas: the refusal of the
soldiers to consent to his escape; the action of the
executioner; the separation of the head and body; bleeding;
convulsive motions, and death. Here is a connected chain
of natural causes and voluntary actions; but the mind feels
no difference between them in passing from one link to
another […] (para. 19)
Human Actions and Decisions are
Both Causes and Effects
No
Escaping!
Causes
Causes
“the refusal of the
soldiers to consent
to his escape”
“the action of the
executioner”
“the separation of the
head and body;” (etc.)
Hume’s Argument for the Doctrine
of Necessity
(1) Causes necessitate: if an event C causes an event
E, then it is impossible that C should have occurred
and E not (rather than some other event E*)
(2) Actions are caused: Human motives, choices,
actions, etc., have causes.
(C) The Doctrine of Necessity: Human motives,
choices, actions, etc., are determined (necessitated) by
their causes.
A Problem for Hume’s Argument
So far, I’ve been explaining Hume’s
argument for the Doctrine of Necessity.
Now, I’ll switch sides, and explain why his
argument may be wrong.
Schrödinger’s Cat
?
(50% chance)
Indeterministic Causation: It seems that we cause Tibble’s
death by putting him in the box. But that doesn’t determine that
he will die.
The Objection
(1) Causes necessitate: if an event C causes an event
Falseoccurred
E, then it is impossible that C should have
and E not (rather than some other event E*)
(2) Actions are caused: Human motives, choices,
actions, etc., have causes.
(C) The Doctrine of Necessity: Human motives,
choices, actions, etc., are determined (necessitated) by
their causes.
Hume has two positive
arguments
Hume’s Positive Arguments: first articulate
(and criticize) Hume’s arguments for his own
views.
1. The argument for the Doctrine of Necessity.
2. The argument for the Doctrine of Liberty.
Hume’s Defense: then articulate (and criticize)
Hume’s defense against the Evil Scientist
Argument.
Hume’s Argument II: The Principle
of Liberty
“By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or
not acting, according to the determinations of the will; this
is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose
to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is
universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a
prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of
dispute..” (para. 23)
• The English Translation: Liberty is:
being able to do what you want to do,
and …
being able to not do what you want not
to do.
The Argument
(1) Liberty is the power to do (or not do) as we
choose.
(2) All who are not “a prisoner in chains”
have that power.
(C) All who are not “a prisoner in chains”
have liberty. (para. 23)
A Problem for Hume’s
Argument
• Hume’s claim that all of us who are not
physically restrained can act or not as we
choose is very plausible.
• But is this what is at issue in the free will
debates?
• Note: Poor Al in the evil scientist scenario still
has “liberty” in Hume’s sense. But we have
found reason to doubt that he really “authors”
his actions.
• So: Hume has shown us a conclusion which is
irrelevant to the free will debate.
Agenda
Hume’s Positive Arguments: first
articulate (and criticize) Hume’s
arguments for his own views.
Hume’s Defense: then articulate Hume’s
defense against the Evil Scientist
Argument.
Hume’s Version of the Evil
Scientist
Hume is speaking for his opponent:
“[I]f voluntary actions be subjected to the same laws of
necessity with the operations of matter, there is a
continued chain of necessary causes, pre-ordained and
pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all to
every single volition of every human creature. No
contingency anywhere in the universe; no indifference;
no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted
upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the
Creator of the world, who first bestowed motion on this
immense machine, and placed all beings in that
particular position, whence every subsequent event, by
an inevitable necessity, must result.” (para. 32)
God is the Evil Scientist
• Hume’s opponent concludes: God
is responsible for all of our actions,
and we are responsible for none of
them.
“For as a man, who fired a mine, is answerable for all the
consequences whether the train he employed be long or short; so
wherever a continued chain of necessary causes is fixed, that Being,
either finite or infinite, who produces the first, is likewise the author of
all the rest, and must both bear the blame and acquire the praise
which belong to them.” (para. 32)
• NOTE: Theological entanglement is
entirely optional.
Hume vs. the Evil Scientist
Hume has two responses to his version of
the Evil Scientist argument.
The First Response: We are naturally
inclined anyway to blame people for
their bad actions (we thereby “hold them
responsible”)
“The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the appearance of certain characters,
disposition, and actions, it immediately feels the sentiment of approbation or blame [….] A
man who is robbed of a considerable sum; does he find his vexation for the loss anywise
diminished by these sublime reflections? Why then should his moral resentment against
the crime be supposed incompatible with them? […] Both these distinctions are founded in
the natural sentiments of the human mind: And these sentiments are not to be controuled
or altered by any philosophical theory or speculation whatsoever.” (para. 35)
Hume vs. the Evil Scientist (Again)
The Second Response: God and his
attributes are a really big mystery anway,
so we shouldn’t get too worked up about
these theological matters.
“These are mysteries, which mere natural and unassisted reason is very unfit to handle; and
whatever system she embraces, she must find herself involved in inextricable difficulties, and
even contradictions, at every step which she takes with regard to such subjects [….] [T]o
defend absolute decrees, and yet free the Deity from being the author of sin, has been found
hitherto to exceed all the power of philosophy. Happy, if she be thence sensible of her
temerity, when she pries into these sublime mysteries; and leaving a scene so full of
obscurities and perplexities, return, with suitable modesty, to her true and proper province,
the examination of common life; where she will find difficulties enough to employ her
enquiries, without launching into so boundless an ocean of doubt, uncertainty, and
contradiction!” (para. 36)
Against Natural Inclination
• Hume’s first response seems to miss its mark.
The question is not what we are naturally
inclined to do; the question is whether it is
legitimate to do what we are naturally inclined
to do.
• Suppose that we were naturally inclined to kill
the loved ones of the people we hate. Does this
fact about our natural inclinations make the
killing legitimate?
• Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
• Is it true that we are naturally inclined to punish
the guilty?
Against Hume’s Dismissal of
Theology
• This is not a response.
• Theological speculation is not essential to
the Evil Scientist argument.
Kane’s Theory
• Robert Kane (1938 - )
• Kane is a Libertarian: he believes that we
“author” our actions, partly because our
decisions, choices, etc., are not determined by
antecedent conditions.
On to Kane: Our Agenda
• Kane’s Evil Scientist: first identify Kane’s
problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom: then
review Kane’s explanation of free will in terms of
what he calls “Deeper Freedom”.
• Kane’s Defense: finally, show how Kane
proposes to establish authorship.
Kane’s Libertarianism
• Kane is a Libertarian: he believes that
we have “free will”, and so some of our
actions are not determined.
• As a Libertarian, Kane can accept the Evil
Scientist Argument for Incompatibilism.
• Kane’s evil scientist: Frasier of “Walden
Two”
• Kane still faces a variant of the Evil
Scientist Argument.
The Evil Scientist Without Universal
Determinism
I hereby
choose to
raise my arm!
?
The problem isn’t
that Al’s desire is
determined; it’s
that it’s caused.
The Hard Problem of Free Will
“While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon.”
I want to…,
I choose to…,
I plan to...
Cause
caused
External Circumstances
Psychological Sources of Action
Action
The Evil Scientist Argument
against Authorship
1) Descriptive Premise: In the Evil Scientist
Scenarios (±Universal Determinism), Al is not
the “author” of his actions. In particular, Al is
not responsible for what he does.
2) Analogy Premise: Our situation is exactly like
Al’s in all relevant respects.
(C) No Authorship: We are never the “authors” of
our actions. In particular, we are not
responsible for what we do.
Agenda
• Kane’s Evil Scientist: first identify Kane’s
problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom: then
review Kane’s explanation of free will in terms of
what he calls “Deeper Freedom”.
• Kane’s Defense: finally, show how Kane
proposes to establish authorship.
Surface Freedom vs. Deeper
Freedom
• Kane distinguishes between surface
freedom and deeper freedom:
“[Walden Two-ers] have maximal surface freedom of action
and choice (they can choose or do anything they want), but
they lack a deeper freedom of the will because their desires
and purposes are created by their behavioral conditioners or
controllers.” (p. 501, col. 1)
• Surface Freedom: being able to do what
you want.
• Deeper Freedom: “freedom of the will”
What is Deeper Freedom?
A Simple Proposal
• Surface Freedom: the ability to act according
to what you want, choose, decide, etc. (All who
are not “a prisoner in chains” have this, at least
sometimes.)
• Deeper Freedom: control over the shape of
your own psychology: what you want, what
matters to you, etc.
Agenda
• Kane’s Evil Scientist: first identify Kane’s
problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom: then
review Kane’s explanation of free will in terms of
what he calls “Deeper Freedom”.
• Kane’s Defense: finally, show how Kane
proposes to establish authorship.
Kane’s Defense: Agenda
• Kane’s 2-Prong Strategy: Kane attempts to
establish that we have authorship in two very
different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs): The key concept
in Kane’s argument.
• Kane’s Unstated Argument: Kane’s
arguments that we are responsible for our
actions.
Kane’s 2 Prong Strategy I:
Two Kinds of Action
SFA’s
(Self-Forming Actions)
APA’s
(Auto-Pilot Actions)
Are NOT determined
Are determined (by
character, habits,
standing motives, etc.)
Do NOT help form our
character, habits,
standing motives, etc.
Help form our
character, habits,
standing motives, etc.
Kane’s 2 Prong Strategy II:
Passing the Buck
Kane needs to do two things: Secure
“authorship” for APA’s; and secure
“authorship” for SFA’s.
For APA’s: Pass the buck to SFA’s. We are
responsible for our APA’s because we are
responsible for our character.
For SFA’s: ????
Kane’s 2 Prong Strategy III:
Aristotle’s Dictum
How come Kane thinks he can pass the buck from APA’s
to SFA’s? Because he holds
Aristotle’s Dictum: An agent is responsible for an action
that was determined by her character, habits, etc.,
(together with circumstances) only if she is responsible
for her character, habits, etc.
“[I]f a man is responsible for the wicked acts that
flow from his character, he must at one time in the
past have been responsible for forming the
character from which those acts flow.” (p. 503, col. 2,
bottom)
Kane’s Defense: Agenda
• Kane’s 2-Prong Strategy: Kane attempts to
establish that we have “Deeper Freedom” in two
very different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs): The key concept
in Kane’s argument.
• Kane’s Unstated Argument: Kane’s
arguments that we are responsible for our
actions.
SFA’s: The Definition
Definition: An SFA (“self-forming action”) is an
action or choice which contributes to the
formation of one’s character.
“Not all choices or acts done ‘of our own free wills’ have
to be undetermined, but only those choices or acts in our
lifetimes by which we made ourselves into the kinds of
persons we are. Let us call these ‘self-forming choices or
actions’ or SFAs.” (pp. 503-504)
SFA’s: Examples
Examples: (For each of these identify: the SFA, and the effect on the agent’s
character.)
 Me and philosophy: my decision to read philosophy contributes to my
general bookishness now.
Former Co-Worker: His decision to quit drinking contributes to his general
bitterness and irritability now.
Teddy Roosevelt: his decision to “toughen up” as a teenager contributes
to his robust and ebullient personality as an adult.
Mystic River: The boy’s decision to get in the car contributes to his
pedophiliac impulses now.
Kane’s Businesswoman: her decision to help rather than hurry
contributes to her warm humanitarianism now.
Kane’s Defense: Agenda
• Kane’s 2-Prong Strategy: Kane attempts to
establish that we have “Deeper Freedom” in two
very different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs): The key concept
in Kane’s argument.
• Kane’s Unstated Argument: Kane’s argument
that we author our actions.
Kane’s Unstated Argument
1) Kane’s Assertion: We (normally) have
control over and responsibility for our SFA’s.
2) Kane’s Assumption: if we have control over
and responsibility for our SFA’s, then we have
control over and responsibility for our APA’s.
(C) Authorship: We (normally) have control
over and responsibility for all of our
actions.
Assessing Kane’s Unstated
Argument: Agenda
• Kane’s Assertion: How does Kane establish
control/responsibility for our SFA’s?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist: Kane thinks
there’s a big difference between us and Al.
• Kane’s Assumption: Does control over SFA’s
imply control/responsibility for character?
The Positive Argument: From
Indeterminacy to Control
“If she overcomes this temptation [i.e. her
ambition], it will be the result of her effort,
but if she fails, it will be because she did
not allow her effort to succeed.” (p. 504,
col. 2, top)
1)
2)
The businesswoman’s effort to overcome her ambition
explains her success if she succeeds.
Her allowing the effort to fail explains her failure if she
fails.
(C1) Whichever way she acts, something she did explains
why she acted that way.
(C2) She controls and is responsible for her SFA.
The Negative Argument: No
Reason to Deny Control
“[T]hese conditions taken together (that she wills it, and
does it for reasons, and could have done otherwise
willingly and for reasons) rule out each of the normal
motives we have for saying that agents act, but do not
have control over their actions (coercion, constraint,
inadvertance, mistake, and control by others).” (p. 506,
col. 1, top)
(1) Kane’s List: The only reasons one can have for
denying an agent control over and responsibility for her
actions are: coercion, constraint, inadvertance,
mistake, and control by others.
(2) In the case of the businesswoman (and in similar
cases of SFAs), none of these reasons apply.
(C) The businesswoman (and similarly situated
agents) controls and is responsible for her SFA.
Assessing Kane’s Unstated
Argument: Agenda
• Kane’s Assertion: How does Kane establish
that we have control over our SFA’s?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist: Kane thinks
there’s a big difference between us and Al.
• Kane’s Assumption: Does control over SFA’s
imply control over character?
Kane’s Responses to the Evil
Scientist Argument
Generic Response: The Analogy Premise is just wrong!
More specific responses:
Positive Argument
Negative Argument
Unlike Al and the Walden Two-ers,
we have indeterminacy in our
psychology.
Unlike Al and the Walden Two-ers,
we are not being manipulated by
someone.
Assessing Kane’s Responses
• Kane’s two different responses can be
countered by tweaking the Evil Scientist
scenario so that the differences disappear.
• We seem able to do this for both
responses.
• The argument against Authorship will then
still work.
Two Evil Scientists
I hereby choose to
raise my left arm!
Lefty
Curses! Foiled
Again!
Left?
Right?
?
(50% chance)
Righty
Indeterminacy in Al’s
psychology without
“authorship”
0 Evil Scientists
I hereby
choose to
raise my arm!
No manipulation and
no “authorship”
The Evil Scientist Argument
(one last time)
1) Descriptive Premise: In the Evil Scientist
Scenarios (±Universal Determinism), Al is not
the “author” of his actions. In particular, Al is
not responsible for what he does.
2) Analogy Premise: Our situation is exactly like
Al’s (in at least one of the Evil Scientist
Scenarios) in all relevant respects.
(C) No Authorship: We are never the “authors” of
our actions. In particular, we are not
responsible for what we do.
Assessing Kane’s Unstated
Argument: Agenda
• Kane’s Assertion: How does Kane establish
that we have control over our SFA’s?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist: Kane thinks
there’s a big difference between us and Al.
• Kane’s Assumption: Does control over SFA’s
imply control over character?
Is Kane’s Assumption Correct?
• Where, exactly, is the problem with Kane’s
unstated argument?
• Kane’s Assumption: if we have control over
our SFA’s, then we have control over the
changes in our characters that result from those
SFA’s.
• Recall some of the cases of SFAs. Were they
all cases in which the agent has control over the
changes in her character than resulted from
those SFAs?