Free Will and Choice

The following is, first, an outline of some basic tenants denying the existence of free will and the ability to decide, placed in italics. The author of these ideas is not identified, in an attempt to protect the innocent. They are followed by my reply on the subject.

No real form of free will exists, Rational decisions, spit-second choices and even accidents happen based on who we are and what our circumstances are. Since we did not make ourselves or our circumstances, both are made by previous occurrences – we have no choice in our actions. That is not to say that we are not responsible for our actions since social responsibility bends our actions in a positive direction.

For Instance, if I am pondering a moral choice such as whether to tell the truth or not, the being that is thinking is made up of all my experiences, remembered or not, since egg met sperm. Since most of my experiences regarding lying are negative, I am more likely to tell the truth. However, some of my experiences regarding telling the truth are negative, so I might tell a lie. Which ever I do happens as a result of who I am, not out of free will.

With no free will there is no praise or blame, except as a tool to influence behavior, and no sin (evil). In fact, except for having a more advanced memory processing system, this makes us no different from the animals. We learn that something has good or bad consequences and we “choose” the best route. If we intentionally choose the worst route, it is because we prefer its expected results such as attention through punishment, etc.

Some have suggested that increased education does not give you more freedom but actually limits your ability to choose. You may know more choices but are less able to choose the wrong one. However, such opinions admit to varying levels of free will, so I cannot agree. I think that our use of the term “free will” is totally lacking in example and so never justified except in sci–fi.

Even a God, should it exist, may have no free will since, by definition, it in all good. God could only do the best of all good options. The saying “Everyone does the best they can with what they have” is true, but could also be said “Everyone does the only thing they can with what they have.

What then is the meaning of life? There is none. Then why live? For one or both of two reasons. You want to live / are afraid to die, or others want you to live / don’t want you to die. Is life empty and not worth living? Maybe for some, but I’m having a good time and would be glad to help others enjoy their lives, too. Is there a God? None for me, thank you, but you may have one if you like. Is there life after death? None for me, thank you, but you may have one if you like.

On what do you base your decisions? How do you know right from wrong? I am who I am and I act accordingly. I have learned from experience and the teachings of many wise people that life is more worth living if everyone treats each other as they would want to be treated. That is what I do unless a stronger urge is present or I am ignorant of all the pertinent information. So you can do whatever you want? Yes, but society discourages certain behavior such as breaking the “Golden Rule” in certain ways. Since I know the rules we have made and the personal consequences of breaking them, I am not likely to.

* * * * *
Your discussion on the free will and choice shows that a lot of thought has gone into it, but surprised me, because for some reason I thought you might have gotten beyond that paradigm already. What do I mean? Well, when psychology (the study of the soul) was still a branch of philosophy wanting to become a science, it started looking around for a scientific model to base its first paradigm on.

The “in” thing at the time was Newtonian physics, and so to make a long story short, that is how early psychology turned modern--day prep–hall “know–thyself” into the mechanistic (pool, anybody?), deterministic (no final causes for me, please), materialistic (no potential realities either, thank you), pseudo–scientific (I can’t measure it, so it isn’t there) and reductionistic (the whole is the sum of its parts, so you are no more complicated than your billiard–ball atoms, are you now?) fill–us–off–y it is today.

The problem, I guess, is that it takes scientific theories several generations to have their deepest impact on the minds of the masses; and by that time, science has already discarded the old theory for a new one. Maybe that is one reason someone once said that truth has never been in fashion. And I might add that one reason the kinds of ideas you have expressed have survived for so long is that they make it much easier to adapt to and justify the modern “western civilization” way of life.

But assuming that we are what we think, (and no doubt we do as we think) a problem arises from the fact that such ideas also tend to perpetuate that lifestyle (which is said to be self-destructing). Either we catch up in our thinking and thus change our world now, or we hang onto our comfortable old paradigms to the end, until the world around us forces us into violent change. Needless to say, the former is immediately much more challenging, but eventually the latter may be unthinkably more painful. Personally, I would rather take the challenge, wouldn’t you?

So you can see why I was surprised. The new physics and subsequent philosophical revolution have done away with most of the once–universal truths that much popular philosophy is still based on. What would have happened if psychology (and the various disciplines that either branched off or borrowed from it) had waited until now to apply for science–ship? Several people are making very laudable efforts to answer that question, and if you are truly serious in your quest, they deserve your close inspection.

(Friday, August 9, 1991)