The Illusion of Free Will

Often considered a gift from God, free will is the capacity to be in full control of one's actions and decisions. For hundreds of years, this was not held as belief, it was fact. Then philosophers burst on the scene and did what they have always done: they began trying to answer questions that were previously unasked, even unheard of. Is free will real? Are events predetermined, or might even they be random? Should this be approached scientifically or spiritually? If you ask any ordinary person if they have free will, they'll probably say yes; could this be a mere delusion? If it doesn't exist, what would be the moral implications? I intend to present the case that Determinism is the true phenomenon, but more importantly, I propose that this distinction doesn't matter in the slightest.

Let's start with the basics of Determinism, cause and effect. Every action has a reaction, and cause reliably precedes effect. With every event one can, with the proper understanding, predict it's repercussions. In astronomy, the trajectory of asteroids can be mapped, the lifespan of stars can be measured, even the fallout of a supernova can be estimated. This is possible because - despite the complexity of astrophysics - the forces at work on this cosmic scale are relatively few and constant. It is when we move on to smaller systems that the complexity rises. Take weather for example. The primary force at work is heat from the sun's rays, evaporating water and warming air. From there, the effects begin to butterfly out. Edward Lorenz's intriguing idea that tiny events can have sweeping consequences, the so-called 'butterfly effect,' is most often used as a metaphor for global weather patterns. Water vapor results in varying levels of humidity, while air temperature creates pressure systems. These systems affect every other system around them, constantly trying to reach equilibrium, while the sun provides more energy to keep the gears turning. Although we can reasonably predict the weather, we can't see nearly as far into the weather forecast as when we predict the actions of the celestial bodies.

Predicting the results of actions - the effects of particular causes - becomes absurdly complicated as we consider the actions and emotions of the homosapien. The list of forces that affect the average human is enormous, and each of those forces could change multiple times in a day; however, we can simplify these forces with an example. If subject A desires substance B and believes that pressing a button will reliably provide them with B, they will continue to press that button until they either stop desiring that substance or they stop believing that the button will provide it. Some 'soft determinists' would say that this is evidence of free will, as the subject would be acting on his own beliefs and desires (194). This is not the clear case, however, as one's beliefs and desires are still influenced by their specific environment and circumstances. In the previous example, A did not know the purpose of the button. Upon discovering that pressing the button produced reward B, the subject gained the desire to press the button. His actions have been influenced by an outside source.

In real situations, the example given above can be modified, and multiplied exponentially for every stimulus a person is exposed to everyday. Everything from the weather to how they slept that night can influence their decisions. There's also their past experiences, the food they've eaten, the people they've spoken to. Traffic, politics, fortune and misfortune, accidents, sickness, birth and even death perpetually change the course of human life. Everything they have ever seen and everything they have ever done will influence what they will do next. We compare our experiences to our beliefs and modify those beliefs accordingly. It's why fields like psychology exist, or how we can predict the behavior of animals. We may not be able to track every minute stimulus that affects someone, but we can predict the outcome within a margin of error.

The reason for this is relatively simple; despite being the most physiologically complex species on the planet, our bodies are still governed by chemical reactions. All living things are DNA-replicating machines formed over millions of years and constructed from chemical molecules. Ordinary organisms, guided by biological instinct rather than logical thought, more closely resemble the 'machine' model; humans are different solely because we developed the capacity for having thoughts about survival, as well as biologically unnecessary concerns like politics and reality television. These thoughts are not needed for survival but have become commonplace within human society; a wild animal will eat the first available food while a person could waste a half hour or longer choosing between mexican or chinese take-out. Despite the added confusion, human actions are still controlled by chemical and hormonal demands. To use food as an example, if you are craving a nice rare steak, your body is trying to tell you that it needs more protein, and maybe some iron.

Our brains are calculating, complicated, capricious contraptions. The wiring of brain cells and the firing of synapses are the formation of our thoughts and desires. When an area of the brain is triggered by one's experiences the area becomes more developed; when areas are rarely stimulated they atrophy. Such as explained by Cahn when discussing Darrow's defense of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who kidnapped and murdered a young man:

He argued that the actions of his clients were a direct and necessary result of hereditary and environmental forces beyond their control. Leopold suffered from a glandular disease that left him depressed and moody... his parents instilled in him the belief that his wealth absolved him of any responsibility towards others... he became an acute schizophrenic. Loeb suffered from a nervous disorder... he often had thoughts of commiting suicide. He was under the control of a domineering governess and was forced to lie and cheat to deceive her...by the time he reached college he was severely psychotic. (189-190)

These two young men with promising futures ended up losing all hope because they suffered from mental diseases and were raised by people who stimulated the worst parts of their minds. Ordinarily it's hard to see how events can shape a person's mind, but in this situation it becomes obvious. They had no choice in this; from the moment they were born they had these disorders, and were reared in families incapable or unwilling to procure treatment. Under these circumstances, there were no alternatives. This represents one of the biggest reasons people will argue against Determinism: moral responsibility.

In the previous case, Darrow's defense of the two men convinced the judge to give them life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, under the belief that they were not responsible for their own actions. The question that logically follows is whether anyone should be prosecuted for their transgressions. While this seems to be a complex issue, the answer is actually quite simple. For starters, regardless of whether someone is responsible for their actions if he is a threat to society he must be contained. This is why Leopold and Loeb were still imprisoned and not set free. Additionally, the threat of punishment by law is a considerable deterrent to crime, influencing the thoughts and actions of people. Excusing criminals from illegal transgressions would cause mass hysteria. This can also be seen as an appeal to emotion, as demonstrated by William James. "We feel," says James, "that although a perfect mechanical fit to the rest of the universe, it is a bad moral fit, and that something else would really have been better in its place." (221). The problem here is that James treats morality as a trait of the universe instead of what it is, a construct of human society.

It becomes immediately apparent that many arguments against Determinism are rooted in faith, similar to how a theist will defend the existence of their God. Following this line of thought, one can see why many people are so ready to defend the illusion of free will. Most philosophical questions are posed in order to obtain a more satisfying answer than what previously existed. And as humans are emotional creatures, these questions cause conflict between our hearts and out minds. There is no evidence supporting the existence of God, but many of us shudder to imagine our existence as purely the result of some cosmic accident. There is no evidence supporting the existence of the human soul, but we don't want to be mere biological machines. There is no evidence supporting free will, but we want our decisions to have purpose; when it comes to personal decision making, it's awfully convenient to ignore the evidence. As stated previously, humans are emotional and therefore are unable to fully acknowledge an existence that is purely logical. Determinism is a fact of the universe, but the illusion of free will exists for the sake of our own sanity.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M. (2007). Freedom or Determinism?. In Cahn. Steven M. (Ed.), Exploring

Philosophy: An introductory Anthology (pp. 189-198). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

James, William. (1898). The Dilemma of Determinism. In Cahn. Steven M. (Ed.), Exploring

Philosophy: An introductory Anthology (pp. 214-225). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.