[MD] Free Will

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,


> Steve said:
> It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably can't even mean anything. What does it mean to say that not only are you capable of acting out your will but that on top of that your will is free? Free of what?
>
> dmb says:
> I don't get it. How is free will different from the ability to act out your will?

Steve:
Free will is not generally understood to be the ability to act on
one's will. Any animal can do that. Free will goes a step further than
that to propose an extra-added ingredient that humans posses and
animals do not . It says that the will is not determined by anything
other than the soul or some "something extra" with which the self can
be identified that exists beyond our biology and socialization and
even our unique set of experiences.


dmb:
And the last question seems a bit odd since the question of free will
hardly makes sense without some kind of determinism to oppose it. I
mean, when we're talking about "free" will we are talking about the
absence of physical, biological, psychological, theological
determinism, etc.. We're talking about the causal factors that would
constrain that freedom. That's what free will would be free from, no?

Steve:
Sure. And once you subtract a person's physical, biological,
psychological, personal historical, and all other circumstantial
aspects, what is left to refer to as the person? What could possibly
determine what one wills if not these sorts of things? But none of
these aspects of our past and present circumstances are within our
control at the instant we make a decision.



> Steve said:
> Harris is not saying that we have no choice. The question is where do choices come from?
>
> dmb says:
> I don't get that either. Isn't the controversy all about whether or not persons are moral agents? Isn't the whole question about whether or not the choices actually come from persons - as opposed to coming from causes beyond their control?

Steve:
Humans are moral agents because our actions have moral consequences,
not because we can control our static patterns. We are our static
patterns.



> Steve said:
> Whether we like the consequences of believing in free will or denying it's coherence as a concept is beside the point of whether or not free will is intelligible.
>
> dmb says:
> I think freedom and constraint are both intelligible at the same time. I mean, experience isn't just one way or the other. The notion that we are determined and the question of freedom is traditionally generated by an all-encompasing worldview, particularly theism and materialism. But I can't quite see where Harris is coming from. He denies that his objection entails a materialistic assumption but we know that he's an atheist and a brain scientist and something like a moral realist. I just don't see how that adds up.

Steve:
Playing the causation game doesn't depend on any particular
metaphysics. But once you start looking for explanations in terms of
causes, the serpent of causation is found to run over everything. To
try to say the buck stops at the will fails since we then want to know
what caused someone to will what she wills. There is an unavoidable
regress once you go looking for causes.


dmb:
> I think that the MOQer would frame the issue around DQ and the four levels of static quality rather than a metaphysical premise like theism or scientific materialism per se. In the MOQ's moral framework we have all kinds of conflicting values and they each exert their pressures and demands...

Steve:
True, but this is a denial of the traditional concept of free will.


dmb:

> If there is no free will, then there is no such thing as being responsible. If that were true, serial killers and philosophical novelists would be morally equal. How intelligible is that?

Steve:
This is the fear that people seem to have about giving up the notion
of free will, but it is nonsense. All it means is that it makes more
sense to focus on prevention, restitution, and rehabilitation than on
punishment and revenge.

See Harris's post, "Morality without "Free Will"":
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/

Best,
Steve