The idea of free will has been debated by philosophers for a long time. A real-life story from the year 2000 highlights how complicated this topic can be. A 40-year-old man was arrested for possessing child pornography and molesting his 8-year-old stepdaughter. This was shocking because he had never shown such behavior before and was confused about why it happened. While waiting for his trial, he started having severe headaches. Doctors found a tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain linked to controlling sexual impulses. After the tumor was removed, his inappropriate urges went away, but they came back a year later when the tumor returned. A second surgery removed the tumor again, and this time, the urges did not return. This story raises important questions: Was his behavior a result of free will, or was it caused by his medical condition? Could it be a mix of both?
When we talk about free will, two main philosophical views come up: hard determinism and libertarian free will. Hard determinists believe that every action is caused by previous events, leaving no room for free will. On the other hand, libertarians believe that people have the freedom to choose their actions, independent of past events.
If you find both hard determinism and libertarianism unsatisfying, compatibilism might be the answer. Compatibilists, also known as soft determinists, think that while the universe follows certain laws and past events influence future actions, some human actions can still be considered free. They argue that an action is free if it is determined by internal factors rather than external ones. For example, jumping off a diving board is a choice you make yourself, while being pushed off is not. In both cases, the action is determined, but the source of determination is different.
This view allows for the possibility of moral responsibility, as some actions may come from internal motivations. However, it also raises questions about what moral responsibility really means. If our actions are determined by internal factors, how free are we truly?
The case of the man with the brain tumor makes us think more about moral responsibility. If a brain tumor causes someone to act in ways they can’t control, can we hold them accountable? This question also applies to people with severe mental illnesses or those under the influence of substances like alcohol. While their actions might be internally motivated, how much control do they really have?
Philosopher Harry Frankfurt challenges the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which says that for an action to be free, a person must have been able to choose differently. Frankfurt Cases show situations where people might be morally responsible even if they couldn’t have acted otherwise. For example, if a lifelong Democrat votes for their party even though a device in their brain would have forced them to vote differently, they might still be responsible for their choice.
The main issue might not be whether we are free or not, but how much control we have over our actions. Philosopher Patricia Churchland suggests that instead of asking, “Am I free?” we should ask, “How much control do I have?” This view acknowledges that the universe is deterministic but still allows for a personal sense of freedom.
Churchland argues that as social beings, we naturally assign praise or blame for actions, but we must also consider how much control individuals have. For example, sneezing is an involuntary action, so we don’t blame someone for it. However, if someone sneezes on another person’s lunch, they are held accountable because they had control over where they directed their sneeze.
The discussion of free will is complex and has many layers. While compatibilism offers a way to balance determinism with moral responsibility, it also raises questions about control and the influence of internal and external factors on our actions. As we continue to explore the philosophy of free will, we must think about how our understanding of control shapes our views on responsibility and accountability.
Engage in a classroom debate where you take sides on hard determinism and libertarian free will. Research arguments for your assigned position and present them to the class. Consider how the case of the man with the tumor might support or challenge your viewpoint.
Participate in a role-playing activity where you act out scenarios that illustrate compatibilism. For example, create a situation where a character makes a choice influenced by internal factors, and discuss whether this action is free. Reflect on how compatibilism might apply to real-life situations.
Analyze a case study involving mental illness or external influences, similar to the tumor case. Discuss in groups whether the individual’s actions can be considered free and how much moral responsibility they hold. Present your findings to the class, highlighting the complexities of free will in such contexts.
Write an essay exploring Patricia Churchland’s idea of control over actions. Discuss how this perspective might change our understanding of free will and moral responsibility. Use examples from the article and your own experiences to support your arguments.
Participate in an interactive workshop where you create and analyze your own Frankfurt Cases. Work in groups to design scenarios where individuals appear to have no alternate possibilities but still seem morally responsible. Share your scenarios with the class and discuss the implications for the principle of alternate possibilities.
Free Will – The ability of individuals to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. – In philosophy, the debate over free will questions whether humans can truly make independent choices or if every action is predetermined.
Determinism – The theory that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes. – Determinism suggests that every decision we make is the result of a chain of events that started long before we were born.
Compatibilism – The belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive and can coexist. – Compatibilism argues that even if our actions are determined, we can still be considered free if we act according to our desires and intentions.
Moral Responsibility – The status of being accountable for one’s actions, especially in a moral or ethical context. – Philosophers debate whether moral responsibility is possible if our actions are determined by factors beyond our control.
Internal Factors – Elements within an individual, such as beliefs, desires, and emotions, that influence behavior and decision-making. – Internal factors like personal values and motivations play a crucial role in shaping one’s ethical decisions.
External Influences – Factors outside an individual, such as social, cultural, and environmental conditions, that affect behavior and decision-making. – External influences, such as peer pressure and societal norms, can significantly impact an individual’s choices.
Mental Illness – A condition that affects a person’s thinking, feeling, behavior, or mood, which may impact their ability to relate to others and function each day. – Understanding mental illness is essential in psychology to provide appropriate support and treatment for affected individuals.
Control – The power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events. – In psychology, the concept of control is crucial in understanding how individuals perceive their ability to influence their own lives.
Philosophy – The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. – Philosophy encourages critical thinking and questioning of the assumptions that underlie our understanding of the world.
Accountability – The obligation to explain, justify, and take responsibility for one’s actions. – In ethical discussions, accountability is essential for ensuring that individuals are held responsible for their moral choices.
