Daily Times

In philosophy, free will is defined as “the conduct of a human being which expresses personal choice, and is not determined by physical or divine forces.” People who believe in free will are called libertarians.

Determinism as an opposite concept, which is defined as the doctrine that “all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes external to the individual’s will,” or “the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future.”

Compatibilism is the belief that “free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.” Compatibilists often define “free will” as when the agent had the freedom to act according to their motivation.

Although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Incompatibilists, on the other hand, believe that determinism and free will cannot exist together.

Free will has been classically defined by two opposing ideologies:

1. divine fatalism: It suggests that when a man can take more than one possible actions, the choice is not made by the man himself, but by God; and

1. determinism: There is exactly one possible action that a person can take consistent with the operation of the laws of nature, so there is no choice among alternatives.

Free will and determinism have been a topic of contention between philosophers, theologian and jurists since the recorded history. One of the main reasons for this is that the concepts of free will and determinism are intricately intertwined with the concepts of subjective and objective morality. Furthermore, abstract concepts of love, freedom, praise, guilt, sin and responsibility are also dependant on free will.

Darwin’s theory of evolution proposes humans as a product of natural selection

We recently published on the topic of objective morality from an ontological point of view where we briefly alluded to free will. In part I of this article, we will explore the philosophical and theological roots of free will and determinism. We will also discuss the interplay between these two factors and how this affects individual choices along with shaping ideologies and cultures. In part II, we will explore the religious, especially the Islamic, perspective on free will and determinism.

Classical Greek and Hellenistic concepts of free will and determinism:

Classical Greek period of philosophy, which was influenced heavily by Socrates and Plato, and followed by the Hellenistic period up to the emergence of Roman Empire, addresses the issues of determinism and free will as follows:

According to Socrates’s famous doctrine, “virtue is knowledge and vice is ignorance,” no one acts against what he knows to be good. According to Socrates, free will is impossible without self-control, for people without self-control aren’t capable of free will. Socrates, thus, blames ignorance rather than a free individual agency for morally wrong actions. Plato, in his writings, leans towards the existence of the free will. He argues that freely chosen morality depends on the shifting nature of one’s beliefs. According to him, moral choices are necessary for the soul to achieve a heavenly status in the afterlife.

Epicurus (340-270 BC) is regarded as the first Hellenistic philosopher who addressed the problem of the free will.

Epicurus’ theory of the atomic swerves explains that all things, including human souls, are made of atoms. According to his theory, it is indeterministic swerves in these atoms that give rise to free will. It is possible that consciousness is an emergent psychological property of the material mind. Free will could be a manifestation of consciousness.

The major developer of Stoicism school of Greek philosophy, Chrysippus (279 BC-206 BC), argued that some future events that are possible do not occur by necessity from past external factors alone. We have a choice to instigate action. Chrysippus said our actions are determined in part by us and predetermined in part by God. In the modern worldview, Chrysippus views are more in line with the compatibilist worldview.

Western philosophy and modern views on free will:

The problem of free will is an important topic that major figures in the world of philosophy such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), David Hume (1711,1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) have dipped in and out of. More recently, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett from the neoatheist platform have also delved into the topic.

Is Free will real?

Most modern proponents of determinism have popularised their argument against free will from a reductionist world view. According to this philosophy, humans can be eventually be “reduced” to atoms and molecules with forces, fields and particles determining their behaviour. There is not much scope for human agency and free will. In the non-reductionist world view, human beings are intentional agents, with psychological features and mental states with agency, choice and control. The higher-level phenomenon, like cognition and consciousness, supervenes on physical phenomena, but are not reducible to them. Free will, thus, requires intentional agency, alternative possibilities and causal control over our actions.

When faced with a choice, an agent’s values such as ethics, loyalties, priorities, could give rise to more than one possible action, thus, giving the agent a range of options compatible with their values. A rational agent would consider the options available to him or her and choose the best option. In this way, although the options available to the agent are stemming from causes, the agent is making a free choice within the range of options available. Bruce Waller, a philosophy professor, in his book, “Restorative Free Will,” writes that we should focus on our ability, in any given setting, to generate a wide range of options for ourselves, and to decide among them without external constraint.

Darwin’s theory of evolution proposes humans as a product of natural selection. We are mere replicators of genetic material, passing it through generations. Altruistic behaviour, according to Richard Dawkins, is a mechanism to promote and ensure survival. Moderns neurophysiological studies (Benjamen Libet) have demonstrated that there is a build-up of electrical activity in the brain before a person takes a conscious decision to move, for instance. Just like we can’t will our heart to beat, we can’t will our brain to make conscious decisions. Our behaviour is completely dependent on the firing of neurons; giving rise to our thoughts.

Sam Harris, in his book, “Free-will,” said the idea of free will cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality and is incoherent. According to Harris, we are biochemical puppets responding to background causes over which we have no control. Every choice we make is made because of preceding causes. The choices we make are determined by those causes, and are, therefore, not choices at all.

Problems with Determinism:

Vohs and colleagues carried out social experimentations and concluded that belief in free will somehow enhance a sense of moral responsibility as compared to a sense of complacency i.e. free will is a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethics. Further studies by Baumeister and colleagues have linked a diminished belief in free will to stress, unhappiness, and a lesser commitment to relationships. When humans are indoctrinated with the teachings such as that, all actions follow from prior events and ultimately all actions can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules, it reduces the sense of life’s meaningfulness. It seems that when people stop believing they are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. This a serious issue as far as ethics of morality, responsibility and justice are concerned. When society starts believing that free will is an illusion, people behave less creatively and are less willing to learn from their mistakes. Virtues such as gratitude, praise, comradery, conformity, generosity and striving to achieve positive outcomes are less meaningful and empty gestures. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, believes that if we accept that it is our genes and brain, and not the free will, which is responsible for human deviant behaviours we can rehabilitate all offenders in a much meaningful way. According to Harris, in a deep sense, their crimes are not the fault of the criminals.

What is Compatibilism?

David Hume and Thomas Hobbes seemed to consider free will only in terms of freedom of action or simply put, “liberty.” As long as the agent is not prevented by external constraints from acting as they choose, they have free will. They believed that free will and determinism are compatible.

The question remains that can we be morally held responsible for our actions if we don’t have a free choice? Daniel Dannett, whilst maintaining a reductionist world view, has proposed another model of compatibilism. According to Dennett, determinism does not always imply inevitability. An agent can anticipate the likely consequences of his actions and avoid undesirable action. He calls this ability “evitibility,” as opposed to word inevitability.

Evitibility, according to Dennett, is compatible with determinism because that’s how the agent anticipates the likely consequences of his actions and avoid them. By proposing this model of compatibilism, Dannett puts the responsibility on the agent for making moral choices.

We conclude Part I of this article with the following thoughts:

The crux of the debate between free will and determinism lies within the individual’s worldview of reductionism. If humans are no more than a conglomerate of atoms governed by natural laws, the existence of free will cannot be proven or justified. However, if we are endowed with qualities such as consciousness, metacognition and spirituality, we are responsible for our actions. Even with some degree of “fate” or determinism, we always have a choice between various options and courses of actions. If we continue to believe in this kind of practical free will, it should be enough to preserve ideals and ethical standards.

The writer is a consultant surgeon in the UK