Free Will, Neuroethics, Psychology and Theology

Geran F. Dodson

• Publisher: Vernon Art and Science Inc.
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781622733033
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Free Will & Determinism in Philosophy

The topic of human free will has received more attention in the past several years due to the important discoveries of neuroscience but no consensus of opinion is evident in related disciplines. The traditional approach to understanding free will in philosophy employs conceptual analysis to determine whether humans have freedom of choice. Theology affirms that every person has free choice although God is somehow behind all human decisions. Evolutionary psychology points to human behavior as the product of biological processes and antecedent events. And neuroethics attempts to define what it means to be a thinking moral agent by investigating how neurons in the brain and chemical interactions combine to produce conscious actions. An assessment and evaluation of these various positions is given in light of the evidence. The issue of whether a person can be held morally responsible for their actions hinges on whether those actions originate from free will or are the result of determinism. Theology makes assumptions of the existence of an absolute deity that has a hand in human decision making, but there is no agreement regarding the nature of that intervention. Recent scientific discoveries confront traditionally held religious beliefs and necessitate the creation of a new theology and articles of faith.

Chapter 1
Philosophy and Free Will

From the time of the early Greek philosophers, humans have maintained a firm belief that they possessed free will. Among the first Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle based their theories of free will on the concept that humans are free agents who possessed the intellect and the necessary free will to make decisions. This concept of free will, also known as the volitional faculty, was viewed as inherently good and utilized rational activity as that which processed thoughts into action. Aristotle reasoned that free will was present wherever there was intellect. The interaction of intellect and free will there exists the freedom to engage in the goodness that free will offered.

Immanuel Kant captured the concept of freedom as a universal concept in his categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” To Kant, free will was one of the three most significant metaphysical problems he believed were of the utmost concern to humanity, immortality and God being the other two. He was well aware that a rich and religious background influenced the debate on these topics. However, concerned with the foundation of moral actions, Kant believed the imperative should be applied because of his belief in free will. He maintained that moral law was valid for all rational beings because of the property of human freedom.

The history of inquiry into the nature of free will is one of the major thematic areas of philosophy. As David Hume surmised, the subject is a most contentious one. Hume underscored the problem by noting there is no evidence for a purpose in nature and no evidence for efficient causes. Causality is a most difficult process to identify and the causes and effects that we perceive in nature are nothing more than observations of the way in which things happen. Hume was a compatibilist who maintained that freedom and moral responsibility could be reconciled with causal determinism.

The question is whether humans have the capacity and freedom to choose a course of action that results from the control of individual choices and actions. One of those “contentious” questions is whether we make decisions based on our desires or do we act in response to rational considerations.

First, we begin with the concept of determinism and ask whether one has the ability to act otherwise. We then move on to an overview of compatibilism, incompatibilism, libertarianism, indeterminism and the charge that free will is an illusion. In the process we will touch on some of the recent studies in the philosophy of science. Our investigation is general by design and is intended to serve as an overview of the history of the main theories of free will.

Determinism

In his monumental work The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy¹, Isaac Newton wrote extensively on universal gravitation and the laws of motion that established the validity of the heliocentric model of the universe. Newton’s scientific and mathematical discoveries influenced philosophers who wondered if the mathematical theory of motion, which used starting points to predict motion, could be predictors of the forces in our minds. Unfortunately, he was unable to move any further than constructing the hypothesis.

From the fourth century CE to the Age of Enlightenment the Roman Catholic Church held all thinking hostage by developing the concept of causation of behavior from a theological viewpoint. With the dawn of the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment, the focus gravitated from the Church’s belief in religious determinism to a philosophical foundation of determinism that had been expressed years before in the Greek philosophy of Anaximander, Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, Pythagoreans, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Rene Descartes identified freedom of action to be not of a predetermined nature even if one could affirm the existence of divine foreknowledge. To him, human will is free and incompatible with determinism even though he maintained that God is the universal cause of everything and nothing happens without God having knowledge of it happening. We consider ourselves independent free will decision makers, but free will is not exempt from dependence on God’s foreknowledge. Freedom of choice essentially means we have the ability to do or not to do something when the intellect presents an action for affirmation or denial. Free will is perhaps the noblest characteristic of humans because it somehow makes us equal to God. Descartes does not totally eliminate the idea of free will although he maintains that human freedom is somehow compatible with divine determination.

Pierre-Simon de Laplace², often considered the father of causal determinism, took his cue from Descartes and referred to an intellect that “Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situations of the beings who compose it . . .it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe . . .for it (the intellect) nothing would be uncertain and the future, as in the past, would be present to its eyes.”³ The first philosopher to express such ideas about the intellect, Laplace’s explanation became known as Laplace’s Supreme Intelligent Demon.

Thus the groundwork was laid for causal determinism or the theory that all actions in the universe are determined by the past and are part of a predictable and unbroken chain of events. Also called scientific determinism, it posits that all events and human actions are the result of scientific laws that determine those actions. The brain operates in accordance with the laws of nature, and although we believe we are actively involved in making choices, the brain reacts to each particular situation in a particular way that carries out the predicted action. The question of ethical and moral responsibility has nothing to do with a predetermined action and consequently we are absolved of all responsibility.

Let’s frame the issue in the following example and assume that Sylvia is considering riding her bicycle. She reasons that on the one hand, she should ride her bicycle because she needs the exercise, but on the other hand, it is raining and she does not want to expose herself to the rain. Ultimately she decides she needs the exercise because that is the best decision she could make under the circumstances. In her situation, free will is necessary for the action she will make freely. It appears this action is the consequence of her rational capacity to make decisions. The question that presents itself is whether Sylvia made the decision because she had the freedom to do so or whether she chose that action because her unconscious mind made the decision and she simply carried out the action.

Whether humans have knowledge of the past or are able to predict the future has no bearing on the ability or inability to change the course of events. Many “hard-determinists” believe that behavioral conditioning (in which a person is gradually conditioned to respond to stimuli is particular situations) plays a large role in people’s lives. People usually cease repeating actions that affect them negatively (such as always hitting one’s finger when using a crowbar instead of a hammer) and consequently are less likely to repeat that action. Known primarily as behavioral determinism, it posits that the consequences of our actions teach behavior.

“Soft-determinism” is the belief that our needs, wants, and choices are predetermined even though we are free if some other external factors influence our choices. In other words, there must not be any external barriers to our carrying out a choice we make. Other sub-theories of determinism include behavioral, causal, psychological and religious determinism.

Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and Libertarianism

In response to the claim that determinism does not imply free will, compatibilists believe that we do have free will. Even in the face of causal determinism, the existence of free will is compatible with forces that are deterministic. Although all possible decisions have been determined, we can make a selection of the choices available freely and without constraint. Human will is free to make choices within the framework of a deterministic universe. Thus Sylvia mentioned above would have been given a number of choices but ultimately selected the final choice of her own volition.

Incompatibilism maintains that determinism is incompatible with free will and freedom of choice. Thus it is not possible to make free choices because by definition all choices have been determined. One branch of incompatibilism holds that some people have free will because the actual world is not deterministic; however, some incompatibilists believe no person actually possesses free will because determinism is true only of the actual world. These are termed “libertarians.”⁴

Both schools of thought have an impact on the idea of ethical and moral responsibility. If free will is compatible with determinism as the compatibilists claim, then some element of moral responsibility is inherent by those making decisions if the possibility exists that decisions can be made freely. One of the challenges of compatibilists is that of determining whether one can be absolved of responsibility if some mechanism in decision making would have prevented them from making that decision. In other words, is the person morally responsible for an act in situations where they could have not done otherwise?

Robert Kane⁵ is a well-known libertarian who believes that a person requires alternative possibilities in order to act freely but predetermined acts do not provide alternative possibilities. It is only in the selection of alternative possibilities that one is able to control one’s action. This control is grounded in what Kane terms “ultimate responsibility.” People are thus the originators of their actions and assume responsibility for those actions. Frequently a person may find only one alternative for an action that offers no alternative choices. In that case, the question is whether the person acted out of free will. Despite this, ultimate responsibility demands alternative possibilities from which the person makes a selection that forms one’s character in the process.

Indeterminism

Indeterminism usually refers to the denial of causal determinism because there are no causes for events and no complete predictability. Indeterminism is closely allied with the question of free will in that one has choices in an unpredictable world and which one can choose from possible futures. As a result, everyone has the ability to evaluate and choose specific actions from a world of possible choices. People make ethical choices based on various foundations of ethics and the ability to choose denies determinism and asserts the existence of choices is proof of the denial. People make conscious choices from a plethora of choices and stand ready to accept any and all consequences.

A non-causal thinker is Hugh McCann⁶ who postulates that the reasons for human actions consist of motivations and desires but they are not the causes of our actions. Human actions are utilitarian or consequentialist and have no causal connection to events. When a person makes a decision it is with the intent of making that particular decision and is a reflection of the essence of the person’s being. Writing in The Works of Agency he observes the following regarding free will: “Decision is important because it is the primary means by which we enshrine certain of our reasons in intentions for the future, thus selecting from among the actions available to us the one we will perform. But volition is important also — partly because we feel that our actions, as well as our decisions, are ‘up to us,’ but also because not all action arises out of a prior deliberation and decision.”⁷

Carl Ginet⁸ approaches the issue from somewhat a different perspective and writes that a person who exercises apparent control over an action is affirming their intention to do something that will bring about a consequence. Thus Sylvia affirms her intent to bring about the consequence of maintaining a healthy body that exercising will provide. The question is whether Sylvia is really the agent that causes the action and if there are existing conditions that could affect that decision. Furthermore, c...

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Philosophy and Free Will
• Chapter 2 Theology and Free Will
• Chapter 3 Science and Free Will
• Chapter 4 Psychology and Free Will
• Chapter 5 Ethics and Neuroscience
• Chapter 6 Toward A New Theology
• Chapter 7 A New Theology
• Chapter 8 The Future of Free Will
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index