Free will is an enormous topic, we could go on for months and not touch all of the theories about free will, but what "I" would consider the most important part about the subject of free will is the ordinary use (everyday use, was the drunk man responsible for his actions, is the serial killer responsible for his actions, is the kleptomaniac responsible for his actions, does the gay man "choose" to be gay, etc.) vs. the metaphysical use (i.e., are "WE" in control of our actions, do we truly have "free will").
The ordinary use of the phrase "free will" is an attitude (it is not knowledge) that we take (cultivated by society and human agreement), and it is NOT a declaration of whether or not someone is actually "free" (in the metaphysical sense). In most cases we do not hold the person under medication responsible for for the same actions he does when he is medicated vs. when he is sober. We say there is a difference. Now, is this difference because we "know" whether or not he was actually in control? No, it cannot be, because there is no way to tell. How do we know if the person who is sober doesn't have a naturally occuring chemical in his brain that makes him commit bad acts, which is just as disabling as the chemicals which affect a person on medication? We don't. Is there a way to tell whether a serial killer is in control, or the kleptomaniac? No, but we do hold them "responsible", in this we can see that we take an "attitude" (blame, praise, etc.) towards these actions because we do not actually know whether the person is responsible or not.
When we hold say someone is "free" in the ordinary sense, it is an attitude because it cannot possibly be based on knowledge. We cannot hold other people responible in the metaphysical sense because there is no way of knowing that. The only people we can hold metaphysically responsible is ourselves. Each man can be the only judge of himself on whether or not he is in control. Now this is not to say that we always know when we are in control,as in cases where we say to ourselves, "I don´t know why I did that", "I hope I don´t actually want to do that", etc. This is where we get very uncomfortable because we don´t know whether or not we are in control.
Now, how does free will in the ordinary sense work in the world? Well, free will in the ordinary sense is a convenient way for people (especially politicians and religious clergy) to absolve themselves of guilt. "The gay man has free will, it is his fault that he is going to hell", how does the priest "know" that? He doesn´t, he convienently takes that position to absolve HIMSELF from the guilt of punishing an innocent man. As does the politician who turns on serial killers, and drug addicts, and thiefs, etc. They say, "the drug addict has free will, we must punish him because he choose to do it". Free will in the ordinary sense is a very convenient concept to sleep easier at night. Now, I am NOT saying that we should let child molesters, killers and thiefs go free, but that we should recognize that in any given society, we MUST punish people for who they are in order to maintain a sense of stability, but we should not create a concept that will help us sleep easier for doing it.
Now, can anyone just "choose" to be whoever they want? No, we cannot just choose to be athletic, or choose to be charasmatic, or funny, or charming. What a boring place this world would be if anyone could just "choose" their personality. Who wouldn´t choose to be the most funny, charming, charasmatic person who can easliy pick up women, and talk to strangers, etc, then we would all be the same. Now, this is not to say that one cannot improve themselves in these areas, just that there is a limit to what any one person can do, and sometimes people cannot do things at all. Its not anyones fault, its just the way the world works.
It also irratates me when people say that they "choose" to be happy, they "choose" to be social, etc, and so other people should do so too. Nonsense!! !! !! !! !! !! When comes to human personality, one cannot just "choose" (as an immediate change in their personality) their perceptions as they "choose" lunch or dinner. But, one can ´choose´ (as in a long, hard, difficult, time consuming process that may take months or years, maybe not happen at all to the extent that we would like) to change themselves. Choose (in the immediate sense) would be like when an actor in a play or movie "chooses" to be happy or sad in a scene. Now we all recognize that this is NOT true happiness, and actors themselves are often unhappy in real life, they cannot just "choose" (in the immediate sense) to be happy all the time, because this is not true happiness.
The two concepts of "choose" are often confused and we hold people responsible for not "choosing" (in the immediate sense) to be happy, when that is just not possible. What is possible is that we can "choose" (in the long difficult, drawn out sense) to change our ways, but not in the immediate sense, if possible at all. I think that if we were able to "choose" (immediate sense) to be happy, happiness would lose all of its value. EVERTHING that makes happiness so special lies in the fact that we cannot just "choose" (as an actor does) to be happy. For some people, happiness is hard hard work, but, that only makes it more special to them. More special in a way that others who have it easily can never know.
However, I do believe that some people are unable to control themselves, I mean who WANTS to be a pedophile (and we even see that some pedophiles castrate themselves voluntarily in order to eliminate the urge to molest children, which seems to point to the fact that they cannot control their impluses in that matter, I mean, who wants to castrate themselves?!?, but, does this voluntary castration point to a will to change?? so that one may be free to choose in other ways??), or a serial killer, etc. This is not to say that every one of these people do or don´t have control. When speaking of human behavior, I believe that its always a bad idea to have a general theory that describes ALL cases because humans are just so different. So, perhaps some of these people are in control, some not, some way out of control, some not, some able to overcome their urges with extreme effort, some able to overcome their urges with little effort, some not able to overcome them at all. There's just no way to tell.
Its just that each man can only judge for himself where he lies along this continuim, no one can judge for him, but, I cannot truly say because I have no way to tell. However, looking at our own tendencies, I am sure that we are all made up of different tendencies that fall along different lines of this continium (I have a hard time eating healty, I find it easy to get motivated to work out and go swimming, I can stop drinking whenever I want too, but have a hard time giving up weed, etc, and some people are the exact opposite of these traits), so its not hard to transfer those feelings to other people.
All in all, free will will always be an opinion and/or and attitude until we get some scientific facts on the matter. Try looking up "Libet tests" for some neuroscientific studies done on free will. Now, there is some debate on whether or not these test are actually testing free will itself, and I for one, don't believe they are, but they are very interesting, and will make you rethink the way your brain intereacts to the world.
And, of course, one of my favorite sayings from Nietzche; "The concepts of "free will" and the "unfree will" are myths. In real life, it is only a matter of strong and weak wills."
_________________
Only a miracle can save me; too bad I don't believe in miracles.
02 Dec 2006, 3:07 am
