Philosophers throughout the ages have disputed whether a person possesses free will or is possessed by determinism. Theologians and scientists, as well, have entered the fray of debate. The question is one of significance, meaning, and consequences.
Existentialists such as Jean Paul Sartre, would argue that we do, indeed have free will. Central to the vision of existentialists is the axiom "Existence precedes essence," and it is out of the choices we make that our essence is created. The famed novelist Theodore Dreiser has put the oppositions position very well in metaphorical terms by likening a life to a leaf that is pushed through the air by the wind blowing behind it, with no say in which direction it will go.
From a theological point of view we are faced with the conundrum that If God is omniscient, then he must know in advance what we are going to do. Yet, If God has such knowledge, then how can it be that we humans are endowed with free will, since the Creator is prescient about our behavior before we have carried it out? Wouldn't our behavior then be predetermined? This argument, of course, is predicated upon the existence of God, a faith that the vast majority of people in the world embrace. Yet many of the world's religions ascribe to a belief in free will. Does this pose a baffling inconsistency?
If we accept a deterministic premise, such that our behavior is governed by a chain of cause and effect connections totally beyond our control, then it would seem to follow that no one can logically be held responsible for his actions. Moving into a legal arena for illustrative purposes, if a man commits a murder, under the assumption of determinism, he cannot be held responsible nor can intentionality be ascribed to him. After all, under such circumstances, he had no choice or alternative but to act as he did. Therefore, in a court of law, a jury might accept that he is guilty in the sense that he committed the act in question, but it should recommend that he not be punished for something he had absolutely no control over. This is to say that the jury should make a rational decision, but how can they do this if the members have no free will? The jury is bound by the same psychological laws as the defendant, hence, determinism demands that its members arrive at whatever verdict they come up with, including subsequent recommendations for sentencing. Yet this very viewpoint undermines the concept that the jury is to engage in rational discussion in order to make a free and logical choice regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant, taking into account whether the prosecution has proven its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Further, the whole structure of the basis for morality is shattered. Philosophically, determinism leads us into a labyrinth of frozen behaviors: past, present, and future.
Who amongst us is not familiar with the early passage from The Declaration of Independence, which states that we have " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."? Without the Founding Fathers having made the assumption of free will, these words would be meaningless. I am not arguing that this assumption proves the existence of free will, only that the entire substratum of The Declaration of Independence is contingent upon it.
Let's assume that global warming is brought about in large measure by the actions of denizens of the world. To alter the course of approaching catastrophe, the inhabitants of earth must choose to change their behaviors, yet if they have no choice but to act as they do, then we are faced with a hopeless dilemma. On the other hand, if we have free will and our behavior is not caused by forces beyond our control, are we then led to conclude that there is a randomness and disorder in the universe permitting people do anything they choose? This would hardly seem to be a tenable proposition. Whether we come down on the side of free will or determinism, we enter a cul-de-sac of confusion. Is there a way out?
There are multiple variables that influence out behavior: genetics, neurochemistry, environment, demographics, and geography, along with sociopolitical and economic conditions. There is no question but that these elements impose restrictions on the framework of our choices. Yet left with a philosophy of determinism alone, we are dealing with robots or machines and nothing we say or do really matters. The weight of determinism crumbles character, integrity, morality, emotion, and reason. The mark of a mature mind is the ability to tolerate and live with irony, ambiguity, paradox and inconsistency. I believe that despite the many influences limiting our free will, it is that very ability, what we do with it, and the personal responsibility it carries that serve as the cornerstone of a civilized society and a life well lived or not. If necessary, one may think of free will as the "cause" of decisions, choices, and actions.
It is indisputable that, barring certain pathological states, we all have the inner experience of possessing and exercising free will. Is that an illusion? If so, it is a grand illusion; one that makes a difference, for in itself it influences the choices we make.
Hugh Rosen is the author of Silent Battlefields. Visit his Web site http://www.hughrosen.com to learn more about his novel of second generation Holocaust survivors.
