Sometimes it helps to understand a subtle topic by reading what several different people have to say about it, since all of us resonate differently to the voices of a particular writer. So I’m going to take a repeat leap into the rather murky waters of free will after sharing my previous post, “Giving up blame and shame is a big benefit of not believing in free will.”
Below is a short chapter from Richard Oerton’s book, The Nonsense of Free Will.
I’ve written several previous posts about the book. Oerton is a British attorney, so he often looks at the subject through the lens of the law. Those posts are:
Sitting in the jury box, I deny free will
Free will and religion are both comforting fantasies
A justice system not based on free will would be much better
In my previous post I said:
The central tenet of free will is a person could have done differently. Either someone else, or us. A driver backs into our car in a parking lot. We get upset. Maybe we yell at them, “Why didn’t you look for other cars before you backed up?”
This assumes that they could done what they did differently. But if everything in the cosmos was rewound to the moment just before they started to back up, every atomic and subatomic particle being in exactly the same state, how is it possible that the driver could have done anything differently?
It isn’t possible. That’s why free will is almost certainly an illusion.
Oerton’s chapter is called “Could he have done otherwise?” As shared below, several times he mentions compatibilism. This is how Wikipedia describes it:
Compatibilists often define an instance of “free will” as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one’s own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.
Oerton writes:
What rejoinder might a proponent of free will want to make to the last chapter? Perhaps one like this: “Oh, come off it! Are you saying — are you really saying — that Burglar Bill had to break in, couldn’t have helped breaking in, couldn’t have done otherwise than to break in?”
Many people, some philosophers among them, have certainly taken a very simple view about free will. They presuppose that someone has done some particular act and then they ask the question which heads this chapter. They tend to think that the reply must be, “Yes, of course he could”, and that this reply is all that’s needed to demonstrate the existence of free will.
But there is something concealed in the question which destroys the significance of this reply. If Fred goes out in his best suit without protection against the weather, gets caught in a downpour and returns home soaked to the skin, some helpful bystander might say, “You could have taken your umbrella, couldn’t you?”
Fred might reply politely (because he is not easily provoked), “Yes, I could. It is in the umbrella stand by the front door and I could easily have taken it if I had wanted to, but I didn’t want to because I find it a bit of an encumbrance and I thought (wrongly as it turned out) that the weather would hold.”
The trouble with the question, “Could he have done otherwise?”, is that it ignores human motivation. Before you can answer it in any particular case, you have to imagine or suppose an attempt to do otherwise fuelled by a wish to do otherwise, and then you have to decide whether or not the attempt would be successful. And of course it’s perfectly true that it would always be successful (unless it were prevented by some outside circumstance) because determinism acts through our wishes, not against them.
If Fred had wished to take his umbrella he could and would have done so. But unless the wish exists, the attempt will not be made and the other course of action will certainly not be taken. And the fact that the wish doesn’t exist is inherent in the question because (assuming no coercion) the act which a person actually did, and not some other act, must have been the act he wished to do.
But are you perhaps still inclined to doubt that the word “could” presupposes a wish? If so, imagine that I re-phrased the question and asked, “Could he have done otherwise if he didn’t want to?” The only answer to this is, “What sort of a question is that?” The wish which was implied in the original question has now been subtracted from it and the result is nonsense.
If the answer, “Yes”, to “Could he have done otherwise?”, seems to contradict determinism, this is only because the determining factors have been excluded from the question.
So the only possible answer to “Could he have done otherwise?”, is “Yes, if he had chosen to do otherwise.” And this answer has a familiar ring, doesn’t it? We have come full circle and found ourselves back with the compatibilism at the start of the last chapter.
Poor old Burglar Bill is still standing outside the house. He is in reasonably good health, his mobility unimpaired (as indeed it would have to be if he were to break in), so he would be physically capable of turning his back on the house and walking away. But if we take this to mean that he has free will, we are simply joining forces with the compatibilists.
We agree with them in saying that Bill is free to implement any choice he may make, so if he chose to break in he would be able to do so, and if he chose not to break in he would be able to go home to bed (assuming always that he has a home and a bed). But as we have already noticed, none of this adds up to free will in the incompatibilist sense — free will of the kind in which we must believe if we want to think that Bill might really turn away — because it leaves untouched the question of whether his choice is free, as distinct from being determined by the motivation within his personality.
There would be nothing to stop Burglar Bill from turning away if he had the wish to do so; but he didn’t have that wish. His history — his genetic inheritance and the influences of his past life — have not endowed him with it. And since he didn’t wish to turn away, there was no actual possibility that he would.
When we have within ourselves the motivation to do something, we do that thing; and when we have no motivation to do something, we do not do it. But if, contrary to his expectations, the police catch Bill after the burglary. he would be unwise to make this point. He will do himself no good at all if he stands up in court and says that he broke into the house because he had a wholehearted desire to do so and no wish whatever to refrain from doing so.
This, in the eyes of our society, is no excuse; paradoxically, it may serve only to increase our outrage and condemnation.
If you are looking for a simple test for the existence of real free will, then the question to ask, surely, is not “Could he have done otherwise?”, but rather, “Might he have done otherwise?” In other words, given all the circumstances, and given the personality of the character which he had when he did the act in question, might he nonetheless, in the real world, actually have refrained from doing it and done something else?
This is a very difficult question because it takes account of his motivations, and the answer to it is not, “Yes, of course”, but “No, of course not”.
Consider finally the possibility of two Burglar Bills. Perhaps they are standing in different but identical streets outside different but identical houses, or perhaps, if you are very imaginative, you can picture them standing outside the same house in parallel universes.
Either way the point about these two Bills is that they are exactly the same — identical in personality down to minutest detail — and there is no difference in the external factors which might influence their behaviour. In all these circumstances, do you think one of them might break into the house and the other might go home to bed? If you don’t, you are a determinist.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These are all Pontius Pilate arguments .. washing ones hand in innocents ….. that is all right in a society were people have found ways to outsource their personal responsibilities on OTHERS.
However, the effect of their personal actions, decisions etc etc, the consequences in the environment, is NOT under their control but does exists ….. If I throw a stone in the pond, there are all sorts of argumentation possible to explain that I was not the doer … that is allright … yet after throwing that stone, ripples are there as a CON – SEQUENCE
“Oh, come off it! Are you saying — are you really saying — that Burglar Bill had to break in, couldn’t have helped breaking in, couldn’t have done otherwise than to break in?”
—–
Well, of course, Burglar Bill could have behaved differently. B. B’s background and life situation would explain how he became a burglar, but he may not have done the break-in if, for instance, he saw there was a security system, he felt ill, there were lights on in the house, etc. So, every act, every thought leading to an action (or non-action) determines how a person responds, and those thoughts are the results of a lifetime’s input of information that arise automatically in response to conditions.
I often decide not to take my mobile phone with me when going out for a walk, just because it’s heavy and I like to walk light and undisturbed! That’s my choice, but one shaped by temperament and personality formed in my early years. On the other hand, I sometimes decide to take the phone, perhaps to take a photo or more likely because folk want me to be in touch – just in case! Again, a result of the data accrued through my life and elicited via a predictive brain.
The crux of the matter of free will comes down to whether or not we are inhabited by an independent, autonomous entity that overrides our biological nature. Again, there is no evidence that such an entity exists, and any self-investigation does not find one. It only exists as an idea, a belief. Personally, I don’t particularly relish the idea of some strange alien entity overriding my innate naturalness, which, as far as I am aware, works perfectly well without an illusory ‘me’ (an observable thought or concept) that believes it has ‘free will’.
Well .. tthere is a dofference between a robot, machine etc and a living creature that is alive.
That aliveness, has no power to act, but without it there is no action.
Aliveness, live does exist but it can only be witnessed in a form
You go through a lot of hair splitting and haranguing for a simple yes and no question. That’s why I don’t care for intellectuals.
Ronald … do Intellectualis have a choice NOT to be intellectual / analytical?
Um true ones never have a choice but there’s many pseudo intellectuals. The same can be said of fake masters. And Gurinderji is both . Regardless you can have a choice in one instance and no choice in another, depending on the karma involved.
@ Ronald
Whether he is a master or not I don’t know. Looking at him and his uncle I am reminded of a story that the late MCS used to tell about a king meeting a farmer and his wife.
He, Mcs, had the wife in the take address her husband by saying … You remember that man that SAID he was a king?!
For me masters are “human beings that are said to be Masters, Guru’s etc etc” by OTHERS and I having no experience with mastership etc have no clue whatsoever what mastership entails
That said I do have my feelings and thoughts about these men as human beings and THAT makes me decide whether I will and can sit in their audience and digest what they have to say.
So that said …I had to laugh many times the way how MGS answered questions ..in my experience he can be very funny, .. but .. I do understand that many others cannot appreciate the same. … and what is psychological interesting is the fact that I have never seen them, especial MCS, loosing their temper during these Q&A sessions. That is a remarkable feat for any human being having to perform in that role.
From my personal perspective and experience Charan had great character and was a good person and Gurinderji is not. True to his character but his character is a f’ing liar and to lie is natural for him. So compulsive that maybe he can’t help it.
Sure, Burglar Bill lacks free will. Sure, agreed, Burglar Bill could have done no different. Makes sense, agreed cent per cent.
Where this descends into incoherence is when this above is taken further to suggest that, therefore, Burglar Bill deserves no blame, that Burglar Bill should therefore feel no shame. That’s where the thread of logic breaks down. That’s where the question-begging circularity shows its face. That’s where this thus-far valid thread of logic breaks down.
That implicit premise, that Burglar Bill’s being justifiably blamed, that Burglar Bill justifiably feeling shame and remorse, is predicated on his magically being able to overturn cause and effect and act differently in that moment than he actually did: that unexamined implicit premise, that, in Sapolsky’s incoherent ethical doctrine, is blithely taken for granted without defending that implicit premise: is where reason breaks down, where logic breaks down, where sense degenerates into senselessness, where reason gives way to incoherence.
Not that this particular ethical argument, above, is explicitly argued, not in this particular post. But we’ve been down that road enough times to know that this what is implied here.
———-
TLDR: No, Burglar Bill does not possess free will. No, Burglar Bill, in that instance, at that time, could have acted no differently than he actually did. …But no, that does not absolve him of blame and shame. …Unless there are extenuating circumstances, then Burglar Bill should be thoroughly ashamed of his dishonesty, and Burglar Bill should indeed be blamed for his criminality.
His lack of free will does not magically absolve Burglar Bill of blame and shame. Should his advocate try to get him off the hook by invoking his general lack of free will, then that defense will be thrown right out of the court on its ear, and rightly so.
Stated belief in hard determinism is akin to stated belief in hard religious concepts. A person’s actions reveal whether their stated belief is genuine or merely an intellectual pretense.
For example, people who state they believe in Sant Mat should be devoting their every spare moment to doing bhajan. For most people, that’s at least 6 hours a day. They should also be strictly heeding all Sant Mat principles. Not just the veg diet, but also giving up all creative pursuits, listening to music, and chatting with friends (see the RSSB books Spiritual Letters and Dawn of Light). If they’re not doing that, it’s hard for me to accept they really believe in the what Sant Mat gurus say is the meaning of life and the resolution of the problem of karma.
By the same token, the proponent of hard determinism can show he truly believes free will is an illusion by never voicing a word of criticism of any person, place, or thing. That includes political figures and political issues. If an avowed HD’er isn’t showing such tolerance, I’m not sure he’s arguing for in respect to his views on no free will.
The interest to Westerners was created by Sawan Singh and Charan Singh to this family farming community in northern India , a commune based on spirituality, under the guidance of a one spiritual person and a committee of others. The Dera, a paradise on earth. But those things never last. So yeah they choose the successor for the greater good of the group that live and surround the establishment. Not for the greater good of you or me .
I don’t know, I don’t know Ronald . it is a chicken and egg issue .
Who started?
the young people that went to the east to find new inspiration for and corrupted culture by two world wars or were it the spiritual and musical teachers of the east that brought their knowledge to the west and inspired them.
You are right every tree ultmately has to created wood to keep itself upright.
The man you called a liar stated at the onset of his time as guru, that plants, if they get to much nutrition, sun shine and water, grow to fast and keep themselves not upright … and that was used to be as an example for the growth of the sangat under the charismatic guidance of the late MCS and that he was going to stop that … and THAT Ronald is certainly not a lie.
It is all foder for sociologist etc .. what happened in the dera and with sant mat in the west between 1965 and 1990, cannot be seen as separate from a general charismatic movement around the whole world.
“Unfortunately” that movement could not survive as everywhere the “Calvinists”, the “office men and women”, the grey people of law and order, hated that colorful movement …so everything eastern is slowly removed from the media stages and replaced by talks about efficiency, money, power and war again
Any way ….
The dera and everything related to it is not a stand-alone affair.
It mirrors the movements of the changes in the world.
And yes that doesn’t help anybody Ronald that is unhappy with the changes.
But Ronald participants in that [leftist, intellectual] ant-authoritarian movement made, consciously or not, an misstake by cutting the roots with their own socio- cultural roots and in doing so alienated little by little an ever growing group of people that wished to maintain and live by traditional values …. Delve in the “heritage foundation see what parties are supported by them in Europe
It is simple if you throw a ball against the wall it will bounce back.
The “left elite” has over played their own hand by stigmatizing, criminalizing their own heritage and forced upon them extreme viewpoints that the masses cannot deal with.
Freedom, is not something that everybody can handle and the left intellectual elite, reasoned that what was good AND proper for them had to be so for everybody else and THAT is beyond ignorance
this is profound, and everyone who has commented has missed the point.
clarity: If Fred had wished to take his umbrella he could and would have done so. But unless the wish exists, the attempt will not be made
the key being: HAD WISHED.
The reality is: he DID wish to and that cannot be changed.
If he had NOT wished to,…. then…. he would not have but – this is irrelevant
why?
Because that possibility (him NOT wishing to rob the bank)
is IMPOSSIBLE.
why? because what you WISH / WANT is determined by everything that has ever happened to bring you to this moment.
it CANNOT be otherwise unless you lived in a different universe and different things had happened.
In other words – your wishes / wants are determined by who you have become and you cannot change that.
hence the scenario of the two identical Burglar Bills.
it is impossible for one to burgle and the other to refrain
the implications of this are HUGE
no such thing as karma, responsibility etc because everything is pre-determined. it cannot be otherwise.
one example: Peter is abused sexually as a child. He gets no help or treatment. He was the victim. He grows up and becomes an abuser.
is he is victim or the perpetrator? he was first the victim. now you blame him.
where this leads to is: we have it all wrong.
there IS NO BLAME because everyone acts exactly as determined by their past
If I’m wrong then the true Masters have infinite love and forgiveness and I’m saved either way. But I’m not wrong . It’s a win/win situation on a spiritual level. I believe half of what I see and nothing of what I read . Even by myself. Jesus will come for me if that is to be , like it or not!
This post starts out with a false premise.
“The central tenet of free will is a person could have done differently.”
That is not the central tenet of free will. The author is setting up straw man, and by so doing, making a false argument. So as we are already beginning with a false statement, any conclusion based upon it is false.
The central tenet of free will is this: that they acted freely of their own will, whatever that will is, unpressured by any outer influence. The ability to choose without coercion.
It always helps to start with a truthful premise, not a false one.
By acting of their own free will you can judge those actions as reflecting the conditioning of that person, and therefore apply the appropriate consequences to that person, as remedial conditioning.
Whomever is the agency behind the action is the one to whom appropriate consequences should apply, as those consequences can thusly shape subsequent behavior in line with law.
Free will is the freedom to act only as you wish. Pretty simple. But intellect has a way of complicating things beyond all recognition. The culmination of intellect unthered to reality is nihlism.