Appendix B - Philosophy of Free Will Glossary

Appendix B: Philosophy of Free Will Glossary #

This section provides some casual definitions for some of the key terms used in the book.

Free Will #

What is Free Will #

Free will refers to the idea that individuals have the capacity to make choices and decisions independently, without being fully determined by prior events, circumstances, or external influences. It suggests that people are the ultimate authors of their thoughts and actions, capable of originating and controlling their choices in a manner that is not entirely predictable based on the past. However, the concept of free will has been challenged by scientific findings in fields such as neuroscience and psychology, which suggest that our thoughts, decisions, and behaviors are largely shaped by factors beyond our conscious control, including our genes, upbringing, environment, and unconscious mental processes. These findings have led many to question the existence of free will as traditionally understood, prompting a reevaluation of how we understand personal agency, responsibility, and the nature of decision-making.

Illusion of Free Will #

The illusion of free will refers to the subjective experience of having free will, even though our thoughts, decisions, and actions may be entirely determined by prior causes. According to this perspective, while we feel as though we are making free choices and exercising control over our lives, this sense of agency is actually an illusion created by our conscious mind. The unconscious processes in our brain, shaped by factors such as our genes, environment, and experiences, are the true drivers of our behavior, but our conscious mind rationalizes these processes, creating the impression that we are freely deciding. This illusion is thought to arise because we are not directly aware of the complex web of causes that influence our thoughts and actions, and because our conscious experience of decision-making often occurs after the unconscious brain processes have already determined the course of action. Proponents of the free will illusion argue that this perspective is more consistent with scientific findings in neuroscience and psychology, which suggest that our conscious experience of free will is a subjective construct that does not accurately reflect the underlying causal processes. Understanding free will as an illusion can have significant implications for how we think about personal responsibility, moral judgment, and the nature of the self.

Philosophy of Free Will #

In this section, we will explore how we might understand free will, or the illusion of free will using various popular “-isms” from philosophy.

Decision Tree #

We can get a handle on these flavors of free will using a decision tree:

  • Free Will
    • Is determinism true?
      • Yes: Compatibilism (Determinism + Free Will)
      • No: Libertarianism (Indeterminism + Free Will)
  • No Free Will
    • Is determinism true?
      • Yes: Hard Determinism (Determinism + No Free Will)
      • No: Hard Incompatibilism (Indeterminism + No Free Will)

Note some dualisms from the decision tree:

  • Determinism vs Indeterminism (with or without free will)
  • Compatibilism vs Libertarianism (with free will)
  • Hard Determinism vs Hard Incompatibilism (without free will)

Note, this decision tree and dualisms are not definitive or complete, just a helpful sketch.

Next, let’s look at a general purpose definition for each term.

Determinism #

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including human decisions and actions, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of previous events and conditions combined with the laws of nature. According to determinism, everything that happens is determined by what has already taken place, following a chain of cause and effect that can be traced back to the initial state of the universe. This view holds that, given a specific set of prior conditions and the operation of natural laws, only one outcome is possible. In a deterministic universe, the future is, in principle, predictable if one had complete knowledge of all the relevant factors. This perspective challenges the notion of free will, as it suggests that our choices and actions are ultimately the product of factors outside our control, rather than being freely decided by an autonomous agent. Determinism has significant implications for our understanding of personal responsibility, moral accountability, and the role of choice in shaping our lives.

Indeterminism #

Indeterminism is the philosophical idea that events, particularly human decisions and actions, are not entirely determined by prior causes. According to indeterminism, there is an element of randomness, spontaneity, or chance in the universe, and not every event is the inevitable consequence of previous events and conditions. This view holds that, given a specific set of prior conditions, multiple outcomes are possible, and the future is not perfectly predictable, even in principle. Indeterminism is often associated with the notion of free will, as it suggests that individuals have the capacity to make choices that are not fully determined by prior events and circumstances. In this view, human actions are, to some extent, uncaused or self-originating, allowing for a degree of personal autonomy and responsibility. Indeterminism has been supported by some interpretations of quantum mechanics, which posit that the behavior of subatomic particles is inherently probabilistic and not entirely predictable based on initial conditions. However, the relationship between quantum indeterminacy and human free will remains a subject of philosophical and scientific debate. Indeterminism poses challenges for traditional notions of causality, prediction, and the nature of explanation in both science and philosophy.

Compatibilism #

Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism can be reconciled, and that it is possible for individuals to have free will even in a deterministic universe. According to compatibilists, free will should not be understood as the ability to make choices independently of prior causes, but rather as the capacity to act in accordance with one’s own motivations, desires, and character, without external constraints or coercion. In this view, an action is considered “free” if it is the result of the agent’s own reasons and deliberations, even if those reasons and deliberations are themselves the product of prior causes. Compatibilists argue that what matters for free will is not the absence of causal determinism, but the presence of certain cognitive and volitional capacities, such as the ability to reflect on one’s desires, to reason about one’s choices, and to act on the basis of one’s own values and intentions. This perspective aims to preserve the notion of personal responsibility and moral accountability while acknowledging the causal structure of the universe. Compatibilism has been influential in both philosophy and the cognitive sciences, offering a framework for understanding human agency and decision-making within a deterministic context.

Incompatibilism #

Incompatibilism is the philosophical view that free will is incompatible with determinism. According to incompatibilists, if the universe is deterministic, and every event is the necessary consequence of prior events combined with the laws of nature, then there can be no genuine free will. They argue that for an action to be truly free, it must not be entirely caused by previous events and conditions, but rather must originate from the agent’s own volition in a way that is not fully predictable based on the past. Incompatibilists contend that if all of our thoughts, decisions, and actions are the inevitable result of prior causes, then we cannot be truly free or morally responsible for our choices. There are two main types of incompatibilism: libertarianism and hard determinism. Libertarians hold that free will exists and that the universe is indeterministic, allowing for the possibility of uncaused or self-originated actions. Hard determinists, on the other hand, accept determinism and conclude that genuine free will is impossible, often leading to skepticism about moral responsibility and the need to revise our practices of praise, blame, and punishment. Incompatibilism highlights the deep tensions between our intuitive sense of free will and the scientific understanding of the world as governed by causal laws.

Libertarianism #

In the context of the free will debate, libertarianism is the philosophical view that upholds the existence of free will and denies the truth of determinism. According to libertarians, individuals have the capacity to make choices and decisions that are not entirely determined by prior events and circumstances, and are thus morally responsible for their actions. Libertarians argue that genuine free will requires the ability to do otherwise, meaning that in any given situation, an individual could have chosen to act differently than they actually did. This view holds that the universe is fundamentally indeterministic, allowing for the possibility of uncaused or self-originated actions that are not the inevitable consequence of previous events and conditions. Libertarians often appeal to the apparent reality of deliberation, reasoning, and voluntary control in human decision-making, as well as the intuitive connection between free will and moral responsibility. Some libertarian theories propose that free will is made possible by the existence of irreducible mental causation, while others suggest that quantum indeterminacy allows for a Break in the chain of physical causation. However, critics argue that libertarianism faces challenges in reconciling free will with scientific accounts of the world and in providing a coherent explanation for how uncaused actions can be rational and controlled by the agent. Nonetheless, libertarianism remains an important perspective in the free will debate, offering a robust defense of human freedom and moral accountability.

Hard Determinism #

Hard determinism is the philosophical view that accepts the truth of determinism and denies the existence of free will. According to hard determinists, every event, including human decisions and actions, is the inevitable consequence of prior events and conditions combined with the laws of nature. They argue that if the universe is deterministic, and everything that happens is caused by what has happened in the past, then there can be no room for genuine free will or moral responsibility. Hard determinists maintain that our thoughts, choices, and behaviors are ultimately the product of factors beyond our control, such as our genes, upbringing, environment, and the complex chain of cause and effect that stretches back to the beginning of the universe. In this view, the subjective experience of free will and voluntary choice is seen as an illusion, a byproduct of our limited perspective and our inability to perceive the underlying causes of our actions. Hard determinists often argue that the notion of free will is incompatible with our scientific understanding of the world and that it is necessary to revise our concepts of moral responsibility, praise, and blame in light of the deterministic nature of human behavior. This perspective raises challenging questions about the basis for punishment, the meaning of personal identity, and the nature of human agency in a deterministic universe. While hard determinism has been influential in philosophy and the cognitive sciences, it remains controversial, with many arguing that it fails to account for the reality of human experience and the importance of free will in our moral and social practices.

Hard Incompatibilism #

Hard incompatibilism is the philosophical view that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism. According to hard incompatibilists, genuine free will cannot exist regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. They argue that if determinism is true, then all events, including human actions and decisions, are the inevitable consequences of prior events and conditions, leaving no room for free will. On the other hand, if indeterminism is true, then events happen without sufficient cause or reason, making them random or arbitrary rather than freely chosen. Hard incompatibilists maintain that true free will requires a kind of ultimate origination or authorship of one’s actions that is impossible in both deterministic and indeterministic universes. They often argue that the notion of free will is incoherent or impossible and that we must revise our understanding of moral responsibility, punishment, and desert in light of this fact. Hard incompatibilism challenges the basic assumptions of both compatibilist and libertarian theories of free will and raises profound questions about the nature of human agency, rationality, and the foundations of morality. While it is a minority view in the free will debate, hard incompatibilism has been defended by some philosophers who see it as the most consistent and defensible position given the difficulties facing other theories of free will.

Fatalism #

Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine that suggests all events are predetermined and inevitable, and that human actions and choices have no influence on the ultimate outcome. According to fatalism, the future is fixed and unalterable, and whatever is destined to happen will happen, regardless of any efforts made to change or prevent it. This view often involves the belief in a higher power, such as fate, destiny, or divine will, which has already established the course of events. Fatalism differs from determinism in that it is not necessarily based on the idea of causality or the operation of natural laws, but rather on the notion of an inescapable, pre-ordained future. Whereas determinism allows for the possibility that different outcomes could arise given different prior conditions, fatalism holds that the outcome will be the same no matter what actions are taken. This perspective can lead to a sense of resignation or powerlessness, as individuals may feel that their choices and actions are ultimately futile in the face of a predetermined fate. However, some forms of fatalism still allow for the existence of free will, suggesting that individuals can freely choose their actions, even though the ultimate outcome is already determined.

Example Scenario #

Let’s explore free will using a simple scenario involving a person named Alex who decides to donate to a charity after reading about a natural disaster.

Original Story: #

Alex reads about a devastating earthquake in the news and decides to donate money to a charity that helps the victims.

Determinism: #

Definition: Determinism is the theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. It is the basis for many philosophical discussions on free will but does not itself negate the possibility of free will (as compatibilism shows).

Framed Story: Under determinism, Alex’s choice to donate is the result of a series of events and psychological states that are causally linked to past events. This includes his exposure to the news, his personal values, and his emotional responses. Alex’s action is seen as a link in the causal chain, fully determined by antecedent conditions.

Indeterminism: #

Definition: Indeterminism is the idea that not all events are determined by preceding causes. This allows for the possibility that some events, including human decisions, can occur without being predetermined by past events.

Framed Story: In an indeterminist universe, Alex’s decision to donate to the charity reflects a break in the deterministic chain. His action could have gone another way under exactly the same conditions, emphasizing the presence of genuine choice or chance in his decision-making process. This randomness or lack of predetermination in certain events makes room for free will, in a sense that actions can be free from the strict causality of determinism.

Compatibilism: #

Definition: Compatibilism argues that free will is compatible with determinism. It holds that individuals can have free will even if their actions are determined by prior events and laws of nature, as long as their actions are the result of their desires, intentions, and rational deliberations.

Framed Story: In a compatibilist world, Alex’s decision is seen as freely made, despite being influenced by external events (the news of the earthquake) and internal states (compassion, moral beliefs). Alex’s ability to process these inputs, deliberate on them, and make a decision based on this reasoning process signifies free will. The causal chain leading to Alex’s action includes personal values and reflections, highlighting the role of agent causation within determinism.

Incompatibilism #

Definition: Incompatibilism, in a broader sense than Hard Incompatibilism, argues that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive, but it doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of free will. Instead, it suggests that if free will exists, determinism must be false, and vice versa.

Framed Story: From this incompatibilist viewpoint, if Alex truly has free will in deciding to donate to the charity, then his decision must not be fully determined by prior events. This perspective emphasizes that for Alex’s decision to be genuinely free, there must be some aspect of his decision-making process that is not constrained by determinism.

Libertarianism: #

Definition: Libertarianism posits that free will is incompatible with determinism and argues that individuals have free will that allows them to make truly undetermined choices.

Framed Story: From a libertarian perspective, Alex’s decision to donate emerges from an indeterministic process that could not have been predicted solely based on past events. Despite the same inputs (the news), Alex could have chosen differently at the moment of decision, demonstrating a non-determined act of free will that transcends prior causes.

Hard Determinism: #

Definition: Hard Determinism holds that if determinism is true, then free will cannot exist. It claims that all events, including human decisions, are the result of preceding events and laws of nature, leaving no room for free will.

Framed Story: In a hard determinist view, Alex’s decision to donate was the inevitable result of a complex causal chain of events, including Alex’s upbringing, personal experiences, and the immediate impact of reading the news. Alex’s decision, while appearing as a choice, was fully determined by these factors, negating the possibility of free will.

Hard Incompatibilism: #

Definition: Hard Incompatibilism argues that free will is impossible whether determinism is true or not. Unlike hard determinism, it maintains skepticism about the truth of determinism but still denies the existence of free will, focusing on the impossibility of free actions or moral responsibility.

Framed Story: From the perspective of hard incompatibilism, Alex’s decision to donate, whether determined or not, does not reflect free will. Even if Alex’s decision was not strictly determined by past events, the lack of a coherent basis for free will in a universe where events are either random or determined means Alex’s choice lacks the autonomy required for true free will. Alex’s action is either the product of deterministic processes or random events, neither of which supports the notion of free will.

Fatalism: #

Definition: Fatalism is the view that all events are predetermined and inevitable, regardless of human actions or desires. It differs from determinism by emphasizing the inevitability of outcomes rather than the causal chain of events leading to those outcomes.

Framed Story: From a fatalistic perspective, it was always going to be the case that Alex would donate to the charity after reading about the earthquake, no matter what. The specific reasons or internal deliberations are irrelevant; the outcome (Alex’s donation) is seen as fixed in advance, independent of Alex’s will or actions.

Through this story, we can see how each philosophical stance interprets the nature of Alex’s decision and action within their respective frameworks of understanding free will and determinism.