Free Will Delusion

How We Settled for the Illusion of Morality

,

• Publisher: Matador
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781784628321

Poverty is not accident, but design. We are not all equal before the law. And the central message of contemporary ethics is that only some people matter. Expanding on work described as "e;crucial"e; and "e;very fine and provocative"e; by the Editor of The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, author James Miles now shows not only that free will is a delusion but that it is this delusion that has left us with only the illusion of morality. Belief in free will means never having to acknowledge your own great good fortune, or recognise the far greater misfortune of others. It is the conceit of freedom of the will that today ensures that so many at the bottom are denied any chance of social and economic advancement. Some free will theorists even argue that we need not be concerned with ideals of equality, fair play and opportunity. Is this fair? "e;Is it fair...? Life isn't fair"e;, shrugs the free will philosopher Dan Dennett. Yes, life is not fair, and if we leave it up to the priests and the philosophers, it never will be. The Free Will Delusion is an eloquent and rousing call to arms that we can be, we must be, better than this.

1

INTRODUCTION

The term free will is widely taken to mean freedom of choice, control such that an individual could have acted otherwise, or true origination of action, although we can and will define it in a number of other ways over the course of this book. Nevertheless, whichever way free will is defined – the libertarian definition, the compatibilist definition, the reactive-attitudinist definition, the illusionist definition, to cite just four instances – the conceit of free will has betrayed truth, intellect, and our capacity for fairness and morality.

“Is it fair, he keeps asking, to hold both of them responsible? Life isn’t fair” (Dan Dennett, ‘Daniel Dennett reviews Against Moral Responsibility by Bruce Waller’).

“There is a deep cultural connection”, writes the philosopher Bruce Waller, between strong belief in self-creation and free choice, and extremes of poverty and wealth and an absence of genuine opportunity for large segments of the culture. The greater the commitment to these conceits, the more the “absence of genuine opportunity, … the greater the disparity between rich and poor, the weaker the commitment to equal opportunity, and the meaner the support system for the least fortunate”. As Waller and the author have independently demonstrated, belief in free will appears to be partially or wholly driving such unappealing characteristics as personal and national vanity, indifference to poverty and inequality, increased cruelty and aggression, greater contempt for ideals of fair play, less concern for protecting the innocent – in other words greater indifference to miscarriages of justice – and heightened toleration of injustice.

The vanity of freedom of the will helped create poverty and destitution, at least in large parts of the West – and in particular the US and the UK – and today it justifies vast inequalities of power, privilege and wealth. It is the affectation of free will which ensures that so many at the bottom are denied any chance of social and economic advancement. In influential work Daniel Dennett, for example, has defended free will with the argument that luck averages out in the long run, and so in consequence everyone in America – rich or poor, black or white – gets just as many chances in life. Dennett suggests that over his long life he has suffered just as much as anyone, and thus no one gets to claim to be any less privileged or less fortunate than anyone else. Free will theorists, secular and religious, advise us to write off between 1 and 20% of our fellows. Some go so far as to argue that justice for the minority should be determined solely by the majority, and even that justice for the majority cancels out injustice for the minority. Other free will scholars seek to split mankind into two types, and deny to the one form the consideration and fairness that we, the apparently more perfect form of human, claim for ourselves. And we shall see arguments from the leading modern free will philosophers that “there is room for the thought” that you and I can take credit for our wonderful health and fine characters, with the deeply distasteful implication that it is to others’ discredit when they are born diseased, or into a toxic environment.

“Is [the system] fair enough not to be worth worrying about? Of course. After all, luck averages out in the long run” (Dan Dennett, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting, p.95).

Free will justification is fundamentally the inability to admit that others have been, or will be, less lucky in life than you. Belief in free will – whether that be belief in free will as free choice, or belief in a free will that eschews free choice – means never having to acknowledge your own great good fortune, or recognise the far greater misfortune of others. It should surely be sad enough that some have forced upon them the losing hands in the lottery of birth and upbringing, while many of us – generally the wealthier, the better-educated, the more attractive, the lighter-skinned – coast though life with barely a hiccup. But to then feel the pressing need to tell untruths about those who suffer misfortune… what does this say about us?

To argue that we don’t need fair, we just need “fair enough”? To suggest that unfairness is “not to be worth worrying about”? To make up stories about those who didn’t get the breaks we did – stories about how “luck averages out” in human life? That they freely chose their own misfortune? That “there is room for the thought” that the child with the progressive motor neurone disease is somehow to blame for being in a wheelchair?

To remain silent when moral philosophers argue that justice for the 99%, or the 80%, wholly extinguishes injustice for the 1%, or the 20%? To say nothing when free will scholars write that the unlucky losers in the lottery of biology and environment are not our fellow humans, that moral and economic apartheid are acceptable and necessary, that truth must be sacrificed to expediency, and that there is no need to extend fair play, or equality, or opportunity, to those not like us?

2

LIBERTARIANISM – FREE WILL AS ERROR

I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everyone acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.

Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (1954, p.8).

In the philosophical literature there are many definitions of free will, all of which we will consider, but when most non-philosophers refer to free will they are referring to freedom of choice, or the possibility that an individual could have done otherwise in any specific situation. Yet whatever definition of free will is being considered – even those which do not presuppose freedom of choice and alternative possibilities – deep ethical and logical problems arise. While we shall introduce more definitions of free will later, we shall start by examining three of the more common, and contrasting, traditions of free will justification. These are libertarianism, compatibilism, and illusionism. This chapter is devoted to the first tradition: libertarianism.

Biology, Environment, and the Third Factor

In free will theory libertarianism is the belief that freedom of choice is actually possible. For libertarians, and in general, behaviour does not just come down to the two factors of biology and environment, because for theorists within this tradition there is a third causal factor that frees us from the dictates of the first two. There is biology, there is environment – but for libertarians there is something else: for libertarians there has to be something else. Because libertarians understand that if man is solely the product of biology and environment (nature and nurture) then moral responsibility becomes deeply problematical, and blame and justified suffering become deeply problematical as well, if for no other reason than that it would be very difficult to argue that a person can be responsible for his or her biology or environment (or argue that being the result of biology and environment gives a person any sort of control over their circumstances).

	Can free will and determinism coexist?	Is determinism true (at the human level)?	Do we have free will?
1. Libertarianism	No	No	Yes, but we have no proof
2. Compatibilism	Yes	Yes	Yes (but not free choice)
3. Illusionism	No	Yes	No, but don’t tell anyone

Not only would it be difficult to argue that a man can be responsible for his biology and environment – or be responsible if he was never given any sort of control or opportunity to do otherwise – but if behaviour comes down to only the two factors of biology and environment then this raises what is called the problem of moral luck. Some of us just happen to have been luckier than others in our biology and upbringing through no credit to ourselves, and through no discredit to them.

The problem of moral luck, and the problem of blame and moral responsibility in a world that reduces to nothing more than biology and environment, is spelled out by the philosopher Bruce Waller. Suppose, says Waller (2015), that we have a best friend John, who is warm, friendly, loving, kind, and virtuous: a credit to our species and a joy to all who know him. Unfortunately a mad scientist – mad scientists are particularly common in philosophical thought experiments – deliberately drips a nasty chemical compound into John’s morning coffee one fine sunny Tuesday, which immediately and irreversibly transforms John into a violent and vicious (but still rational and even reflective) person.

In that case, says Waller, most of us would say that John has now become a vicious and awful person, and we would take steps to protect ourselves from his cruel behaviour. But we would not, upon reflection, blame our former best friend for his new vile personality, which had been capriciously – and through no fault of John’s – forced upon him. We would feel for John’s desperate misfortune, for his wife and children, and thank our lucky stars that the mad scientist hadn’t just as whimsically chosen us for his bonkers intervention. We would agree that John was now a morally bad person, says Waller, but most of us (though not all) would probably agree that we couldn’t blame John for his new personality and the acts that now directly arise from it – and certainly we wouldn’t cruelly seek to make him suffer for what was already his great and sad misfortune. We would want him safely incarcerated, sure, but we wouldn’t consider taking satisfaction from his incarceration, and might even consider it obscene to take pleasure at the thought of his future suffering. But the point, of course, is that in a universe that reduces to biology and environment, everyone we do blame has no more chosen their vile personality than John had after his transformation by the mad scientist.

Each person we do blame – and take pleasure in the suffering of – has effectively had a mad scientist somewhere in their background, screwing around with their genes or their environment. What… we can’t blame our friend John for his personality or wish suffering upon him because he changed halfway through his previously angelic life and against his will, but we think we can blame and wish suffering upon the sixteen-year-old hoodlum from Harlem who has been a problem since infancy? How fair is that, though, that we get to blame and make suffer the one who the mad scientist got to in the cradle but not the one he only finally managed to get to in later life? And largely because John – like you and me – was surrounded by (and then surrounded himself with) the best protection against mad scientists that money can buy? We have no more moral – or intellectual – right to blame the sixteen-year-old hoodlum for his personality or the acts that directly arise from it than we have a right to blame John for what he could not help but become. Or that we only avoided becoming ourselves because the mad scientist dripped potion into his and their coffee (or mother’s milk), not ours. We likewise have no moral right to feel superior to the hoodlum from Harlem, nor any ethical excuse to take pleasure in the thought of his future suffering. Some may want to say, We can’t blame John, but we can blame the mad scientist who changed John against his will. But the mad scientist also has a mad scientist somewhere in his history: someone or something who screwed around with his genes or upbringing. Blame for character fault is profoundly unfair in all circumstances where behaviour reduces to nothing more than biology and environment, and blame and just suffering requires us to be completely indifferent to the overarching problem of moral luck.

If it all comes down to biology and environment our behaviour would be said to be deterministic – would be an inevitable outcome – because biology and environment are themselves recognised as deterministic systems. Determinism is the idea that everything which happens is determined by whatever preceded it, and a deterministic universe is a universe where all current and future events – at least from the point of view of human action – are necessitated by past ones. Determinism is contrasted with indeterminism which recognises events with no cause, as in the quantum world. Metaphysical libertarian free will is the idea – the hope – that humans are not fully determined beings: that although we generally appear to exist within a deterministic universe we somehow manage to break free from this causal chain. For libertarians an individual is truly the ultimate – the originating – cause of his or her actions. The idea is that humans cannot, as above, be the product of only two things – biology and environment – but somehow must be the product of three things: biology, environment, and free choice which exists away from the dictates of biology and environment. For libertarians our actions, at least sometimes, are not solely the product of our cultural and biological inheritance, but are also (and in some significant way) the product of something that can stand outside biology and environment.

The immediate problem for a libertarian view of human action, however, is that it flies directly in the face of both our logical and scientific understandings, and for this reason has tended to be viewed with a profound scepticism by many modern thinkers. Derk Pereboom (2001) has drawn attention to a number of arguments against the libertarian position, including the point that unless the agent was originally responsible for forming his character – in other words that his first ever act was to create his character, and how can anyone create his own character? – then the agent cannot be held morally responsible for any subsequent act, as all subsequent acts will have to flow from that character over which he had no choice or control. Any subsequent act will arise from his character: not a character he freely chose but one that was forced upon him.

However, while these are interesting asides, such arguments remain subsidiary to the wider point that neither determinism nor indeterminism can give us freedom of choice and moral responsibility. Most libertarian authors have traditionally made little or no attempt to offer a coherent explanation for how ultimate origination could even be possible in theory, or for how we might get to stand outside biology and environment at any moment. Origination and free choice are posited but are just supposed to remain a mystery. Origination and free choice are thus proposed as an act of faith by many libertarians. The philosopher Ted Honderich makes the telling point (2002) that in every other area of philosophy concerned with the mind – or philosophy of mind, to be specific – determinism and causality are working assumptions. Honderich says that the theories of consciousness and mental activity nowhere invoke origination or free choice, and instead work quite happily within a deterministic universe of biology and environment. And yet, as soon as we turn to free will, philosophers – very often these same philosophers – invoke origination and an absence of causality with barely a blush.

Given that humans seem to exist within what is termed the quasiclassical or non-quantum universe, where all action exists within a causal chain and all events are the result of preceding causal action, what can be the libertarian explanation? Some libertarians try to found free will on some form of quantum interaction, some form of indeterminism, but that brings its own problems. As Pereboom has written, “aside from the highly dubious idealistic attempts to explain how this might be, the wild coincidences implied by this proposal make it incredible” (2001, p.80). Libertarianism must cling to the hope that indeterminism just happens to appear at exactly the right place and point in time to break the causal chain in a way that would give us control over our moral actions. However, human thought processes involve more than a single neurone, and any attempt to link indeterminism to human mental processing would be not just fanciful but statistically ludicrous. Pereboom notes that interpretations of quantum indeterminacy suggest that it is theoretically possible that all the atoms in a can of soda may suddenly jump one inch to the left, but the probability of such an event at a given moment is so far beyond vastly minuscule as to be laughable, while the mathematics apparently says that you may have to wait far, far longer than the lifespan of the universe for such an event to theoretically occur. Yet similar statistical problems beset any attempt to use quantum indeterminacy to trigger meaningful coordinated determinacy-breaking in human decision-making. Furthermore, the macroscopic universe we inhabit seems to obey deterministic laws because of an effect known as decoherence, which effectively reinstates classical mechanics at the level of systems above the very, very small: this is an effect of universal entanglement that arises from the unavoidable interaction of quantum systems with their environment. Quantum indeterminacy has no implications for human action because we inhabit the macroscopic universe. All such problems are largely irrelevant, though – notwithstanding how interesting they may be – because even if quantum theory held implications for human action, quantum effects cannot give us the responsibility that libertarians seek.

The random chance of quantum theory has no connection whatsoever to the concept of ethical freedom: the freedom to choose, the freedom to will. Doing something because (hypothetically) a subatomic particle randomly moves inside your skull offers no more freedom than doing something because genes or culture dictate it. The quantum event may be uncaused, but your hypothetical resulting action would itself be caused by the quantum event. The action is therefore not uncaused, and it is most certainly not chosen or willed. Arguing that human actions are caused by quantum events will not allow free will, but trying to somehow identify a human action with the quantum event is equally meaningless, as self-evidently we have no control over quantum events: they are by definition truly random events that admit no causes, so cannot be identified with the will, or even with the person’s desires or character. Acts would sometimes come out of nowhere if quantum indeterminacy was involved in human behaviour: not only would you be unable to predict, trust or rely on others’ behaviour, you wouldn’t even be able to predict, trust or rely on your own behaviour, because it would be coming out of nowhere and from outside of character. As the mathematician Norbert Wiener once wrote, “the chance of the quantum–theoretician is not the ethical freedom of the Augustinian” (1948, p.49).

The logic of the physical universe – indeed, any possible universe, deterministic or indeterministic – rules out free choice. Why? Because who a person happens to be from a moral point of view cannot possibly be under his or her own control. To be responsible for how they act they would have to be responsible for how they are, and to be responsible for how they are they would have had to have created themselves – and no one can be the causa sui, the ultimate cause of himself, because in order to do so he or she would have to be in every sense his or her own parent; his or her own author. Self-creation has been vital to the libertarian project since the time of Aristotle, who argued that it was “at first open to the unjust or licentious person not to become such”, and that our dispositions are “voluntary in the sense that it was originally in our power to exercise them in one way or the other” (c.4th BC/1976, pp.124-6).

It was self-creation that the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre trumpeted when he proclaimed that “man is freedom”, and that we have the power to make ourselves, the being-for-itself (être-pour-soi) that exists away from causation and determinism. But self-creation is a nonsensical idea. As Nietzsche put it, “the causa sui is the best self-contradiction hitherto imagined, a kind of logical rape and unnaturalness. For the desire for ‘freedom of the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Libertarianism – Free Will As Error
• 3. Compatibilism – Free Will As Misdirection
• 4. Illusionism, Semi-compatibilism, Attitudinism – Free Will As Indifference
• 5. Poverty Is Not Accident But Design
• 6. The Politics – and Economics – of Free Will
• 7. The Metaphysics of Free Will
• 8. We Are Not All Equal Before the Law
• 9. Summary – Belief in Free Will Means Never Having to Say “Thank You”
• Bibliography