What we miss in the free will debate
I’ve written about free will a few times on this blog, and anyone who’s familiar with these writings will know I’m very critical of most conceptions of free will (Link 1, Link 2). And yet I also feel like we often are missing something really important when engaging in this debate. Let’s not forget what it is most people are arguing about when debating the existence of free will…responsibility. And yet much of the debate surrounding free will is guilty of one of two things. Either focusing on the concept and whether it exists (neglecting the responsibility aspect) or focusing on whether we’re justified in holding people in general (or someone in particular) responsible for their actions.
The first scenario does seem like a case of missing the forest for the trees, forgetting the relevance of the conversation to practical matters. But I think the second scenario actually is case of the same thing. What exactly is the purpose of holding someone responsible for their actions? Is it simply a label we bestow on them, or is there some larger purpose in the way we as human beings interact that this notion of responsibility plays an important role? Well, the normal response is that responsibility is integral to punishment and reward, expectations, our justice system. If someone is “responsible” for an action we treat them differently. A small child, an insane adult, and a hurricane are all normally not held responsible for their actions, and more importantly, for the consequences and affects of their actions on other people.
What does the debate on free will actually accomplish in a practical sense? Does it tell us anything new about human cognition? About the psychological and neurological factors that cause human behavior? Does it help us form systems that can lead to a more desirable society? Whether you want to label something free will or not is, ultimately, not what I’m interested in. If we want to draw a line and call everything beyond that line of neurological functioning “free will”, I’m fine with that. Whether someone in prison for armed robbery was truly “free” in their action is not what I’m concerned with. What I am concerned with is what are the causal factors that led to this person committing that act and what are steps we can take to help that person realize the error of their ways so to speak. Can we change the flow of the interactive pattern that is “them” to follow a more positive route? What are the kinds of systems we as a society can set up to direct the development of individuals towards positive goals. Etc… If words and education aren’t enough, what are the ethics of more invasive measures?
Part of what I am arguing for is an entire reconception of what the purpose of the justice system is and other areas where responsibility is important. Free or not there are reasons for every action we engage in and every decision we make. Those reasons may be known to us or not. If known, we might be in error about their true nature. Regardless, the action occurred. Is it the kind of action that person ought to have been engaged in (yes…determining what we ought to engage in is a whole separate issue)? What are the reasons that kept them from engaging in what they ought to have been engaging in? Was the affect of their action something that infringed on the well being of other beings, and to what degree (if any) do we need to step in to protect this from happening to others?
This is a call for us not to concern ourselves with the debate over free will, but about how our knowledge of causation and intention should inform how we interact with each other. Free will is a red herring in this argument in so far as it matters whether free will in some metaphysical sense exists. Though obviously a scientific pursuit of answering the question is likely to inform more accurate conceptions of human behavior, and in that sense, it’s a worthy pursuit. I’d like to think that beyond societal level issues affected by this sort of pursuit, each and every one of us could gain some measure of empathy in our day to day interactions with others when we have a more accurate conception of the reasons behind their actions, and the limitations and constraints we are all bound by. On this new conception, free will isn’t about punishment, or even responsibility, it’s about understanding, and using understanding as a means to help us all actualize and become the types of people we wish to be.
——————————————————
edit: this is something I wrote in the comments below, but I realize it should have been included in the original post. Rather than rework the post to include it, I thought I’d just make it an addendum.
what is the purpose/goal of designating responsibility? Is to to punish people for certain types of actions and reward/praise people for other types? But what then is the purpose of assigning blame and praise? Again, there has to be something more here than a label…what is the function? If assigning praise to certain types of actions has something to do with encouraging more of those types of actions in that person and in others (by instilling a feeling of self worth, creating desirable conditions for replication, etc..), then the notion of responsibility isn’t really necessary for it. We can cut out the middle man. And if assigning blame is important in lowering the repetition of certain types of behaviors, responsibility is again not necessary. What’s necessary is working towards creating conditions, in the individual and the environment, that will allow them/cause them to behave in different ways. Yes, when applied to the justice system, part of this conversation revolves around protecting those affected by the behavior of the individual. But whether that individual is in jail, or an asylum, or under probation during that time is not in theory what I find to be most important, as long as during that time there is a system working towards creating the conditions I talked about. Otherwise we’re either being ineffective at discouraging these types of behaviors in society, or we’re focused on punishment/vengeance, and don’t care.
19 Responses
1:07 pm
Nice post. I think the whole concept of what constitutes free will is based on our need to designate responsibility in the first place, so I don’t know how much luck you’ll have in removing responsibility from the equation. From what I can tell in any discussion of the concept, it’s a fairly arbitrary designation (as you point out.
What you propose would be an interesting conversation, though.
1:42 pm
I agree it’d be an uphill battle, but it’s an area I’d like to explore in more detail in the future.
But you touch on the very point I’m making (or trying to), which is, what is the purpose/goal of designating responsibility? Is to to punish people for certain types of actions and reward/praise people for other types? But what then is the purpose of assigning blame and praise? Again, there has to be something more here than a label…what is the function? If assigning praise to certain types of actions has something to do with encouraging more of those types of actions in that person and in others (by instilling a feeling of self worth, creating desirable conditions for replication, etc..), then the notion of responsibility isn’t really necessary for it. We can cut out the middle man. And if assigning blame is important in lowering the repetition of certain types of behaviors, responsibility is again not necessary. What’s necessary is working towards creating conditions, in the individual and the environment, that will allow them/cause them to behave in different ways. Yes, when applied to the justice system, part of this conversation revolves around protecting those affected by the behavior of the individual. But whether that individual is in jail, or an asylum, or under probation during that time is not in theory what I find to be most important, as long as during that time there is system working towards creating the conditions I talked about. Otherwise we’re either being ineffective at discouraging these types of behaviors in society, or we’re focused on punishment/vengeance, and don’t care.
It’s not that I think we should discard the entire notion of responsibility, most of the words we use to communicate are convenient shorthands to describe processes or conglomerates of behaviors, and responsibility, free will, love, and anger, can probably all be looked at similarly. The notion of responsibility as a personal motivator is useful concept for humans to encourage (i am responsible for so and so, and with this comes the fact that people are dependent on me, i will feel shame or guilt if i fail in my responsibility, I will feel fulfilled if I succeed, etc…). But the way the term is used normally (if you’re responsible, then you deserve praise or blame, punishment or reward, if not, then you don’t), seems to miss the point of human interaction and behavior.
I don’t have all this fleshed out completely. The post was partly in service of getting some ideas out there and seeing how feedback would help me continue to think about things relevant to the conversation. So if you have more thoughts, please share!
9:32 pm
That’s an interesting view of free will. I like that you think beyond punishment and rewards. I am going to bring in my teacher views again, it’s what I know best…when a student (ages5-7) in my class breaks a rule or hurts someone we (I have an assistant that works with me) try to make them accept responsibility for their action. Not so much to punish, although there usually is a consequence, but to make them aware of their actions and how their actions affect other people. We talk about choices instead of saying they did something bad. Even little children can understand that they hurt someone’s feelings or weren’t doing what they were supposed to. Sometimes they don’t even know they did something wrong-then it is a teachable moment to explain what would be a better choice. You have to teach them when they are young and continue throughout their education.
10:03 pm
Hey Sheila, I think your notion of responsibility is roughly the kind of thing I discuss in my reply to John above. You’re using this concept of responsibility as part of an interactive process between you and your students, and their interactions with the world and people in it. It’s a future oriented approach, that seems to take into account the developmental process of the child you’re working with. This is great. And this is exactly what is lacking in broader notions of responsibility, particularly as the notion is used in the justice system.
10:30 pm
I worked with a former “corrections officer” (prison guard) a few years ago, and asked if he ever saw anyone “corrected.” He said, “What do you mean, ‘corrected?'” Realizing the potential euphemistic implication of what I’d said, I had to explain that I was literally asking if he ever saw someone come out of the system better than when they went in. He said, “No.” Then he back-tracked a little and said, “Maybe one out of a hundred.”
12:11 am
That’s a shame. The thing is, the conversation I’m trying to have shouldn’t even be necessary for society to have justification for rethinking how we do our justice system. Though I think my arguments make it even more necessary.
10:42 am
I know this was posted a couple weeks ago, but very good read Greg. The discussion of responsibility as you talked about it here is very useful in today’s political, societal, and scientific dialogue.
2:07 pm
Thanks Tony! After the events in Arizona I realized the post had more relevance than initially intended. I’ve been going back and forth on whether to write another post more focused on that shooting. Problem is it would have some significant rehash of this free will post, since the post ended up exploring responsibility more than free will.
8:48 am
Just one off-topic comment. There is a difference between the words affect and effect. You seem to be using “affect” indiscriminately.
11:00 pm
I do tend to do that sometimes (though at least in this post I only used it a few times, and I think only one of them was off base). My understanding has always been that “affect” is used as a verb (to influence) and “effect” as a noun (the result). But the problem is “effect” can also be used as a verb (to bring about), and that’s where I tend to mess up usages, unsure if I definitely mean affect or effect.
12:16 pm
I think you are missing an important part of the concept of responsibility: not only is it used who DOES deserve reward or punishment (which I think are more appropriate terms than praise and blame), but who does NOT. For instance, if Person A kidnaps Person B, forces Person B to drive them to Person C’s house, murders Person C without Person B’s knowledge and then releases Person B, is Person B responsible for the murder as a party to it?
1:25 am
Hey Jason, I don’t think anything in my post would stand in contradiction to your comment. I agree with you. Holding or not holding someone responsible is why we care about free will. Giving or not giving praise or blame are way we care about free will. So no, Person B would not be responsible in my book. What would be the argument that says Person B is responsible for it? But again, part of the point I’m making is that these ascriptions aren’t valuable to me unless they can serve to play a functional role in the agent, or in the the community at large.
Is part of your point that I’ve set up a false divide between reward and punishment? That we don’t always have to give one, like in your example, B doesn’t deserve either a reward or a punishment? That’s fine, my contention isn’t that one must always be given, but only that these issues of responsibility are why we care about free will.
12:29 pm
I’d also like to find out more about Brandon’s “corrections officer” since, for him to make the claim that “one out of a hundred” inmates had come out of the system better than they had come in, he would have had to know at LEAST 100 people, who eventually became inmates in his institution, BEFORE they were convicted of a crime.
1:52 pm
Obviously, it was just an anecdote. “1 out of 100” was probably a general assessment of how many people were actually “reformed” by the prison where he worked. He would not have to know them before they were convicted to make that observation. Perhaps this is why he no longer works in “corrections.” Unfortunately, my place of work is a revolving door and I no longer have any way of contacting him.
8:03 am
Here is the disconnect:
“Free will is a red herring in this argument in so far as it matters whether free will in some metaphysical sense exists.”
If free will exists, responsibility for one’s actions exist. Reward or punishment may be offered, not to influence the agent’s future actions, but simply because another chooses to offer it, for whatever reason they choose to do so.
If free will does not exist, then responsibility, by definition, does not exist. Neither for the agent of the action, nor for any agent of punishment or reward for that action. To say that free will doesn’t matter because your concern is with influencing society to prevent future problems really means that you have accepted that YOUR free will exists, and you wish to act as a causal agent over others with as little interference from other wills as possible. 🙂
2:31 pm
Hey Jason, you’ve been making a lot of arguments by recourse to definition, and I’m not sure they’re warranted. Sometimes our definitions of words don’t map on to ontological reality. When that’s the case we need to discuss whether to change the definitions or stop using those words. Free will is one of those phrases. It’s not so much that I think “free will doesn’t exist,” as much as I think the entire concept is muddled, maybe even non-sensical. Though I don’t think it’s impossible to keep the phrase in our lexicon, applying a new, more realistic, definition to it. I think Russel Blackford has a few interesting posts on this:
Jerry Coyne on free will
Michael Gazzaniga on free will
I’m also not sure what definitions you’re working from. In what way does the application of responsibility depend on the existence of free will? Many philosophers argue that the former is not dependent on the latter. But again, my point is not about the definition, per say. My point is about the functional role played by those terms in human interaction. I don’t have to be for or against free will to flesh that out.
You may have some definition of responsibility that depends on a certain definition of free will that you also espouse, but it’s not clear to me why I should be forced to agree with either one.
10:58 am
Jason, your conclusion is a total non sequitur. How has he accepted that his free will exists? Will or intentionality is not the same thing as free will.
Also, what is the point of offering reward or punishment if not to influence the agent’s future actions?
4:39 pm
“Jason, your conclusion is a total non sequitur. How has he accepted that his free will exists? Will or intentionality is not the same thing as free will.”
Because he wishes to act as an agent of causality. To “change society”. If you have the power of causation, then your actions are not pre-determined by prior events, and your will is free (whether you choose to exercise that freedom or not). If you do not possess free will, you are not a causal agent, and your intentions and desires are not only the worst sort of anti-Descartian delusion, but also irrelevant, since you have no power to affect them.
“Also, what is the point of offering reward or punishment if not to influence the agent’s future actions?”
Well, to entertain your assumption that all actions must have a point, a reward or punishment may be given because the GIVER finds fulfilment in doing so (cf. “participation trophies” in children’s sports nowadays; a reward not only bereft of meaning in itself but stealing meaning from legitimate rewards).
“Sometimes our definitions of words don’t map on to ontological reality.”
Which is why I continue to insist on definitions for terms used in argument. We talk past each other all day without constructing a legitimate, educating argument if we’re using different definitions for the same words. If you are working from different definitions from any I have given, then by all means explain them; otherwise I will continue to use my definitions. To be honest (and not intentionally offensive) when philosophers start re-defining words it is usually just an act of sophistry. If you believe that we have to “re-define” free will to keep it in the dictionary, then you believe that free will does not exist. Make your argument against and propose your counter-argument.
” In what way does the application of responsibility depend on the existence of free will? ”
I thought we covered this already, and honestly I have difficulty imagining a more transparent concept. If your will is not free, the term “choice” does not apply to any action you take. If you cannot choose what actions to take, then you have no responsibility for taking them. In fact, it isn’t even rational to call them “your” actions, since you played no causal role in them.
“I don’t have to be for or against free will to flesh that out.”
Actually, you do. If free will exists, cognitive methodology will be the most effective in altering human behavior (and it is). If free will does not exist, then behaviorist methodology will be the best.
7:14 pm
It’s unclear to me why cognitive methodology wouldn’t work if free will doesn’t exist. I have never denied the causal influence of human interaction on our behavior and cognitive processes. Can you explain what you mean?
I covered my issues with your definitions in another reply.