Do We Have Free Will?
I try to not use the phrase "free will," because it's ambiguous. What is meant by "free"? I wouldn't say that our will is free, if what is meant by "free" is "a choice in which an individual is capable of making a moral choice independent of all influences." I don't believe we can make a choice of any kind independent of all influences.
I believe we have "will," which I define specifically as "the ability to choose what we want to choose from among our given options." Often, what we choose is influenced - sometimes even controlled - by external and internal forces. What I mean is, what we decide is often strongly influenced by other factors, or what we decide is determined by outside factors. A few examples: 1. If I get a song "stuck in my head," I will find myself humming the chorus a half hour later; 2. If I am hungry, I will eat (generally speaking of course); 3. I must sleep. Humans cannot go without sleep; 4. I may do something "impulsive" and emotion-based sometimes, because I am an emotional creature; 5. I cannot go into a McDonald's and receive a bucket of chicken from them; 6. I cannot choose to break the law of gravity.
I could go on, and perhaps use better examples. The point is - as the examples show - I cannot choose to defy gravity and fly around, I cannot (successfully) choose to never sleep again, I am often strongly influenced to eat due to hunger, I (for whatever reason) am often unable to get a tune out of my head, et cetera.
So, my ability to choose is not completely "free" in many ways. However, that does not mean I am a robot. I have "the ability to choose from among my given options." That is how I define "will." I am a morally responsible being, because I do have the ability to choose right from wrong, just as I can choose to buy a cheeseburger or chicken nuggets. And even though many times we face strong influences, we have the ability to overcome them.
If we do not have the ability to choose, then what we call "beliefs" are nothing more than the products of the impulses, influences, and other controlling factors that make us do what we do.
Let's say that it is indeed the case that our decisions are based on other controlling factors, and not on us. Every action we make would be due to whichever urge or influence is strongest at the time. If this is the case, then we are not responsible for our actions. If I murder someone, it must be the case that an influencial factor caused this to happen. I cannot be at fault, for I am not responsible for what I do. In fact, I am not accountable for any belief I hold, any action I commit, any idea I formulate, any words I type, any sound that comes from my mouth, and so on.
Justice involves people owning up to their responsibilities. Justice involves wrongs being punished accordingly. But, if I am not responsible, then I am not guilty. I have done no wrong.
My question, then, is: "Is our idea of justice a sham?" If we have NO ability to choose - if we have no "will" - then it must be a sham. "Justice" then is nothing more than another influence, and is not really "just." It is not just to punish someone for an action for which he is not responsible. Justice is based on an understanding of right and wrong. Justice is to uphold the right. But, if we have NO ability to choose (no will), then our idea of "justice" is an illusion. Furthermore, if we have no ability to choose, then the concept of right and wrong do not apply to us. We are merely PRETENDING (or, rather, being influenced in such a way that we pretend) that such things as "right and wrong" and "morals" exist.
With this said, I think that all people, *upon attaining a certain cognitive level*, have "will". Of course, in cases such as severe mental disorder, physical brain damage or disease, a person may not be at the necessary cognitive level to have the ability to choose. So NO, not everyone has "free will" (the ability to choose).
|
|
|