Free Will and Determinism

Destroying free will

Free will is the idea that I can choose between two options. Intuitively, we say that we can - case closed. It seems absurd for anyone to say that I cannot choose to do one thing rather than something else. However, there is the theory of determinism from which it follows that all out actions are predetermined by events preceding them which we had no control over. Let us make determinism clear in our minds, in the simplistic manner that I always try to put things. You would agree that every event is caused. You would also agree that every cause is also an event, hence the way police ask people to describe the "events leading up to the accident" when looking for a possible cause. A billiard ball hitting the side of the table is cause by the player striking it (an event) with a pool cue. The billiard ball entering the pocket is caused by the ball bouncing off the side of the table (an event.) So if all causes are events, then all causes are also caused, since all events are caused. This creates the dilemma. Let us take a simplistic example which shows how a person, using this theory of determinism, cannot really choose which partner he marries in life. Let us say that this character is named Ron, and he is now married to Wendy. The events of his life that led up to Ron's marriage to Wendy are as follows: He is born. He grows up attending school as most do, and eventually reaches university level. He meets Wendy. They are friends for a while, then they begin to get serious. Years later, they are married. If we look at the cause for each of these events, we find can argue that it was inevitable that Ron would marry Wendy. Their marriage was caused by their relationship becoming serious. Their relationship became serious because they met at university. They met at university probably because they were in the same tutorial. They were in the same tutorial because they were in the same course. They were in the same course because they both attended school and there were causes for them to be interested in the same fields. They both entered university at the same time because they were both born in the same year, which is of course due to both their parents deciding to procreate that year, which was caused by their relationship together, which was caused by their parent's relationship, and so on, all of which occurred before Ron or Wendy had any control over anything. This is the general argument, and it seems a bit dodgy to me. The determinists claim that they can explain any event by tracing back the events preceding it, and this chain of events will trace back to infinity, (or the beginning of time, whichever you believe is so.) For example, if we ask "Why did Ron become friends with Wendy and not Susan?" the determinist will say that it was because Wendy displayed characteristics that appeals more to Ron than Susan did. We ask why again, and the determinist will say that Wendy was brought up differently to Susan, which was caused by the way her parents were brought up and so on. No matter how complex the explanation, in theory any event can be explained by the simple fact that it had causes, whether we know the causes or not. And so in theory, we cannot event choose which brand of cereal we eat for breakfast, or whether we prefer Heavy Metal to Techno music, for these may merely be determined by the charts, or our friend's tastes, which in turn were determined by other events again.

No! I want my free will

The first step in regaining our free will is to try and chip away and perhaps, eventually crumble the determinist's argument. My first strike with the pick is to attack the notion that every event is caused by another event. That every event is caused is undeniable fact. However, could it be that some events are caused by something else, and that it is not true to say that all causes are events? There are those who say that some events are caused by chance. This is interesting, and possibly true, but it still doesn't give us free will, for what determines what we do is the flip of a coin rather than our own will. My attempt to argue against determinism is to say that some causes are freely chosen activities. If you ask what caused me to eat Weet Bix for breakfast, it was because I freely chose in the supermarket to buy Weet Bix rather than Cornflakes. The determinist says, "No, you chose Weet Bix because you have been listening to free will arguments and you are trying to demonstrate your free will by picking up a box of Weet Bix, while really the colouring on the box appealed to you more or the price was less."

This sounds ridiculous, and it is almost as though the determinist would blame everything we do on the way we were brought up, or the human tendency to seek whatever gives them most pleasure. Both of these arguments are outside of the realms of determinism and can easily be argued against, and so leaving the determinist with less ammunition. But he will go on to say that the actual cause is irrelevant, and in theory all causes are linked and therefore out of our control. If you read the article Bringing back love to a loveless relationship you will read that it must be a conscious choice to begin to rebuild a relationship. What determines whether someone will make that choice? Is it because they read my article? Many people choose to do so without instruction. Is it because they didn't really have a problem to begin with? No. Perhaps they came to the conclusion on their own that their relationship was more important to them than anything else. But then you would agree that it was their own choice, for nothing external to themselves caused them to make this choice. The partner, after all, may be hostile or cold, far from encouraging the choice to take place. Often people outside the relationship don't know about the conflict. For all intents and purposes, the choice was freely made. But the determinist pipes up again saying "The cause is irrelevant." This is where we stick a sock in their mouth because it seems to me that all their harping on is merely stubborn adherence to something which merely trips them out. No one lives as though we have no free will, and to live contrary to something you say is true demonstrates that you don't really believe it is true. Unless the determinist can show the cause for this hypothetical choice to restore a relationship, I will stand by the notion that it was caused by a free choice.

The implications of the problem

If it is true that we have no free will, then we cannot claim responsibility for our actions, or place blame on anyone else for theirs. We cannot sentence criminals to jail, and we cannot praise the artists of this world for their fine works. Everything you are proud of, you have no reason to be. We can say to the lead guitarist and song writer of a band that all the notes in their number one song were inevitable, and so the credit should not go to them. However, music artists make hit after hit, over and over. How is it determined, according to the determinist theory, that a person will write music that appeals to so many people over and over? Often their argument will turn into entirely novel theories where they claim that any music appeals to anyone, and it is merely the publicity that the artist receives that makes their music accepted over and over. Again, put a sock in it. The determinist, it seems, is merely trying to alter and adjust their most fundamental beliefs simply because there is a philosophical argument which trips them out. Let me tell you another argument from philosophy that trips me out. If I fire an arrow at a tree, I can argue that this arrow will never reach the tree. You see, the distance between the tree and the arrow can be halved, and the time it takes to reach the tree can also be halved. At this point where the arrow is half way to the tree, the distance between the tree and the arrow can be halved again, and so can the time. This process can be repeated infinitely, and so the arrow never reaches the tree. This is a trippy theory, but we know that it is flawed somehow because we know that arrows fired at trees do hit the trees they are fired at (if one is a good aim.) But I will not adjust this fundamental belief because I hear an argument which I find it extremely difficult to fault. I will not, for example, say that all arrows only appear to hit their targets. Our most fundamental beliefs are contrary to the implications of having no free will. We believe that people have responsibility for their actions, we believe that our favourite band are true genius, and we most certainly believe that we can choose what we want for breakfast.