I would like to return to my discussion on time, but it just isn’t the right time for it. There is, in my opinion, a more pressing topic to discuss. On the heels of Black Lives Matter, there is the discussion of freedom. I might suggest that it is actually an underlying concern, rather than something that follows from it.
I think the question of freedom is key to almost all that is going on. Without freedom, none of these other discussions have any meaning. As has been said to me about ethics in general, without freedom there is no ethics. That is, without the possibility of individuals “doing otherwise,” I cannot hold those individuals blameworthy nor praiseworthy. After all, if they are simply doing what they must, without the ability to choose otherwise, how can I hold them responsible for choices they have not made?
It seems like freedom is tied closely with choice. That is, in order to have the ability to choose, one must be free to choose. This is significant in the face of the predominant overwhelming evidence that seems to contradict the existence of freedom. If I look out upon the world, I am immediately aware of a pattern of events that occur. I see events followed by other events, but those sequences of events are not at all random. Certain events seem to be followed quite regularly by certain other events. This regularity has been referred to as “constant conjunction” by the 18th century philosopher David Hume. He called it this in response to what he believed was a mistake made by others in thinking this regularity had a more deep connection: causality.
Causality is a controversial topic in philosophical circles. As Hume suggested, I may notice that certain events seem to always (or almost always) be followed by certain other events, with a regularity that is unmistakable, but I cannot see an actual connection between the event that comes before and the event that follows. There is nothing that I can observe that actually connects the two events. If I watch billiard balls on a table strike each other, I may recognize the nature of the movement of those balls. I may, with confidence, predict how they will move around the table. However, no matter how closely or carefully I watch, I cannot observe the actual connection between the movement of one ball and the movement of another ball. I cannot see any transfer of inertia from one ball to the next. I may believe the connection exists, but I cannot see it. I cannot see causality, I can only assume its existence.
Most of our modern lives depend on this assumption, the assumption that causality exists. This computer that I am using to write out this blog post depends on the assumption of causality to function. Otherwise, how could I rely upon the fact that my pressing the keys on this keyboard would result in these characters being added to this webpage. A lot of things have to take place between my pressing a key, to the point where a very specific and anticipated set of bits in memory are added to a database which results in this blog post that you now read. If causality did not exist (or my assumption of it), it would be incredibly challenging to explain how this blog post came to exist at all.
Most of my world is built upon causally connected events. I say causally connected not because I know with certainty that that is how it came about, but because I have to assume it in order to make sense of my world. I can plan my day because I expect certain events to reliably occur when I expect them to. I expect the Sun to follow a path across the sky each day, illuminating my world in its light. I would be greatly surprised if the Sun did not rise tomorrow morning.
This brings me to the idea of freedom. I refer to it as an idea because there is not a lot of evidence to support its existence. Like I have been saying about time, freedom is a way for me to make sense of my world. It is a way to describe an aspect of my world that I assume must exist, for without it, many of the aspects I take for granted would not make any sense at all. The most noteworthy example is the one I began with, the issue of choice. The simple act of making a choice is an expression of freedom. If it were not, then choice as an idea would itself also make no sense.
In the course of my life, I have had many heated arguments with people regarding my ability to predict human behavior. At various jobs, I have suggested that if we followed a particular course of action, our clients would react in a particular manner in response. I have been told in most of those cases that I cannot know for certain that such things would happen; that human behavior cannot be predicted in that way. However, time and again, the actions are taken, and the clients reacted as I predicted. It is true, I could simply be lucky. It could simply be a situation of hedging my bets. But if that is true, it seems to fly in the face of the clients’ freedom to choose to act differently.
In philosophy, a world that is entirely causally connected is referred to as deterministic. Determinism suggests that all events are connected to all other events by a causal chain that stretches infinitely forward and backward. I once heard said in my youth that if you could know the positions and velocities of all the subatomic particles in the universe at any point in time, you’d be able to predict every event to the end of time. Consequently, you could also determine the history of the universe with perfect accuracy as well. All this would only be true in a purely deterministic world. If my world is such a world, then that suggests no freedom exists. And if that is true, then I am not free to choose anything. All my alleged choices are an illusion, and my actions are in some sense predetermined.
The alternative is that freedom, in some sense, exists. I say in some sense, because freedom can manifest in various ways in order to escape determinism. In fact, for some, freedom does not even need to contradict determinism at all. Alfred R. Mele received a $4.5 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation less than 10 years ago in order to try and shed some light on this situation. In his book entitled A Dialogue on Free Will and Science, Mele discusses a number of these different manifestations, relating them to grades of gasoline at a gas station. For me, the most interesting thing about the book is how it is still unable to answer the question of freedom; that is, I can describe freedom as not being deterministic, but that is about as far as I can go.
To be fair, Mele’s book is very good, and I do recommend reading it if you get the chance. It is short (108 pages), and quite easy to read. You can find it here if you like. In it, the lowest grade of free will, often referred to as compatibilism, is not really freedom in the sense I am referring to in this blog. In compatibilism, what is referred to as freedom is simply the ability of an individual to make a choice without being coerced or unduly influenced. The individual is free to choose. However, with pure determinism in play, the choice can be predicted. Furthermore, one can argue whether anyone is every truly in a situation where they are not being influenced. When I sit on this couch writing this blog, there is no threatening man with a gun to my head forcing me to type. However, I am still influenced by all that takes place around me. Even the fact that I watch the news and am familiar with the Black Lives Matters movement has an influence on my choices and actions. To suggest I can ever make a choice without some sort of influence going on is a mistake in understanding the nature of humans, or of conscious beings in general.
That leaves me with less clear descriptions of freedom. As Mele suggests, one way of viewing freedom is like random chance. That is, when faced with a choice, freedom may be as simple as a completely random selection. The way this is described is that if I somehow were to go back in time and replay the events again, when faced with the same choice, a different choice can be made, again completely at random. While it may be tempting to embrace a freedom of this nature, it doesn’t seem to follow from observations I make of the world. I do see the patterns of regularity, and this includes a regularity in the choices made by individuals. Choices do not appear to be completely random. Choices seem to involve some forethought. Choices seem to follow something related to causality.
Mele does not discuss in much detail what the high grade of free will is. He suggests I relate it to the idea of a soul or spirit within me. In some way related to René Descartes’ mind/body dualism, where the mind is some sort of immeasurable aspect of my being. However, the old argument against Descartes by Princess Elisabeth resurfaces, and we are left wondering how something immeasurable could interact or influence the measurable. If freedom is somehow disconnected from a purely deterministic world, such that freedom is not bound by the rules of determinism, how does freedom inject a cause into the deterministic chain of events?
There is no doubt that I need to believe in freedom. I need freedom to exist. I need the possibility that individuals can make choices freely, so that I can hold them accountable for those choices. They must be blameworthy or praiseworthy based on their own freedom. There must be a difference between how one is, and how one ought to be. I must be able to choose otherwise. Because if that is not the case, then I am simply a cog in a very big and very complex machine. And I don’t like that idea very much.
From my observations of the world through the course of my life, I have seen very little evidence of freedom existing. I have been able to trace back choices and decisions, giving me confidence in understanding why a particular chain of events has occurred. It is true that I cannot see the causal influence directly, but it has worked for me with such reliability that I feel I cannot ignore it. But at the same time, despite the lack of evidence, I also feel I must have faith in the possibility of freedom’s existence. For without that possibility, there does not seem to be any reason for any of this.