Are human beings really free?

Are human beings really free?

The question of free will has been a topic of debate among philosophers throughout time. Many philosophers have pondered about the state of the human being and how free we are in the choices we make. One section of philosophers strongly believes in determinism while the other believes in free will and libertarianism. Determinists believe that all human actions and decisions are predetermined in nature and that we never truly have any control over our actions. Proponents of free will, on the other hand, believe that humans have control over their decisions as they are free to make choices. The debate on free will extends to or moral responsibility and how accountable we are for our actions. In a deterministic view, we may not indeed be responsible for our actions as we have no control since all actions are predetermined by those that precede them. On the flip side, everyone is accountable for their actions in a world with free will as we have control over our actions and decisions on a daily basis. On my part, I support Compatibilism since I believe that free will and determinism can co-exist.

Compatibilism

(McClure) defines Compatibilism as the belief that free will is compatible with a deterministic world where actions are determined by those that precede them. This view can best be expressed by Shi Shi Ravi Shankar’s quote that “life is a combination of destiny and free will. Rain is destiny; whether you get wet or not is free will.” Compatibilism offers a middle ground in the debate between determinists and libertarians. Philosophers such as Bramhall were incompatibilists as they believed in the deterministic view of the world. Incompatibilism includes both libertarianism and hard determinism. According to hard determinism, every event is caused in a predictable way by other events that precede it (Ross). Libertarianism holds that humans have free will and can control their actions and choices. The two groups of incompatibilists strongly believe that the two cannot co-exist. Compatibilism, on the other hand, holds the belief that our actions and choices can both be influenced by determinism and free will. While previous events have an impact on our future activities, free will gives us an option on the next cause of action (Ross). My previous assumptions were that humans are inherently free and have complete control over their actions. Therefore, this paper aims to provide evidence on Compatibilism by focusing on three aspects of this philosophy. The elements include moral responsibility, the principle of alternate possibilities and regret.

Evidence For Compatibilism

The principle of moral responsibility offers the first evidence of Compatibilism. This principle explores the question of whether or not we are accountable for our actions and choices (Turri). Moral responsibility is investigated in both determinism and Compatibilism. In a deterministic view, we may not be held responsible for our actions as we have no control over our actions. Hard determinism states that all our actions are predetermined by previous events. This means that our actions are even predictable as they may be determined by looking at our previous actions (Ross). We are therefore not responsible for our actions as we have little or no control over what we do. However, this is a misconception as we usually have some control over our choices. Compatibilism is compatible with moral responsibility as it holds that as much as our choices and actions are predetermined by previous events, we still have control over what cause of action to take. An excellent example of moral responsibility is provided in the research by (Turri). In his study, a number of experiments are conducted to answer the question of moral responsibility in relation to Compatibilism. The example in the experiments involves a man who has to deliver a package by 4pm. Respondents are asked to determine whether the man has a moral responsibility to deliver the package, if he is to blame for unavoidable outcomes and whether he should suffer the consequences for his actions. Conclusions drawn from the experiment show that the principle of moral responsibility supports Compatibilism.

The other evidence of Compatibilism is based on the principle of alternate possibilities. While this principle provides the core argument for Incompatibilism, the use of Frankfurt cases can be used to provide an argument for Compatibilism. The principle of alternate possibilities holds that “a person is morally responsible for what they do only if they can do otherwise.” (McKenna and Coates). Incompatibilists believe that an agent could only do otherwise if causal determinism is false. This lead to the conclusion that people are solely responsible for their actions if causal determinism is false. This notion is however disputed by compatibilists such as harry Frankfurt who provides examples to counter the principle of alternate possibilities (McKenna and Coates). The best example provided by Frankfurt involves a man who is likely to vote for the democrats in the US elections. The man might only think of voting republican if he thinks about the war in Iraq. To ensure he votes democrat, a device is placed in his brain that activates whenever he thinks of voting republican prompting him to vote democrat. However, on the voting day, the man does not think about the Iraqi war and proceeds to vote democrat. In the example, the man is therefore morally responsible for voting democrat but still has no freedom to do otherwise. The device planted in his brain does not however influence his decision to vote democrat as it is never activated. Therefore Frankfurt argues that moral responsibility is not limited by the freedom of the agent to do otherwise (Campbell). This disproves the principle of alternate possibilities and offers valuable evidence for Compatibilism.

The debate on alternate possibilities also extends to the notion of regret and how it relates to free will. The idea of regret is drawn from William James’s pragmatic solution on “the dilemma of determinism.” James states that regret is impossible in a determinist view (James). Determinists believe that we have no control of freedom in the choices or actions we take, as they are predictably predetermined by previous events. This means that in an incompatibilists view, a person cannot regret a choice made or action taken as they had no control over the outcome. However, regret is possible in a compatibilist view as free will plays a part in our actions. For example, when driving a car, you come to a T-junction. Taking either road leads you to your destination but with some consequences. The road to the right is longer but has fewer chances of having a traffic jam. The road to the left is shorter but with a fifty-fifty chance of experiencing a traffic jam. In this case, you take the longer route to avoid the traffic jam to the left. However, faced with the same decisions, your friend makes a left turn and arrives earlier than you having not experienced any traffic in the shorter route. This leads you to regret your choice of taking the road to the right. In this example, while the previous route taken ultimately leads you to the T-junction, the decision of the road to take from there entirely depends on you. The notion of regret and the example provided above provide evidence for Compatibilism.

Possible Objections

One objection to Compatibilism is the consequence argument. This argument has been proposed by proponents of Incompatibilism and relates to the power a person has over actions and events. To illustrate consequence argument, (McKenna and Coates) states that no person has power of the truths of mathematics. This means that no person can act in such a way that would make the truths of mathematics to be false. In summary the consequence arguments holds that no person has power over laws of nature of facts of the past. Consequently, no one has power over the future as it is dependent on the laws of nature and past events. This concludes that free will does not play a part in the determination of the future as we don’t have power to control certain aspects. Proponents of Compatibilism have provided a counter to the consequence argument by focusing on its first premise about changing the past (McKenna and Coates). They argue that with the freedom to do otherwise, a person has the power to change the past. They explain that if a person did otherwise in a past event, the present and consequently the future would be different. This means that that person has the power through their free will to directly influence their past and consequently, their future. This gives a solution to the consequence argument.

The quest to establish whether free will exists has split philosophers into compatibilists and determinists. On the one hand, the determinists believe that all events are predetermined by actions that precede them, and hence no free will exists to influence our choices. On the other hand, Compatibilists hold that determinism and free will can co-exist. Through research, I have found that Compatibilism offers a much better explanation of human nature as compared to determinism. The evidence provided in this paper supports this notion and provides examples of Compatibilism. The consequence argument has been identified as an objection to Compatibilism. However, this objection has been countered by philosophers in favour of Compatibilism. In conclusion, we sum up with a quote by Jawaharlal Nehru. “Life is a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”