Introduction

Human beings are mere robots reacting to the laws of physics. Free will is an illusion. We have no choice.

But what are the implications of those statements? Do they matter?

And what do they even mean?

The definition of free will is as follows:

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Most people would agree with this. The problem that science has been able to show us in recent times is that the conscious part of us may not be the one "making" the decisions. The part of you that is reading this right now may only serve as an observer, and the actual decisions are made by parts of your brain that are out of your "reach".

If and since the world is controlled by the laws of physics and the world is deterministic, then theoretically everything from the big bang to the absolute end of the world could be predicted if one had absolute knowledge of everything.

To many, this negates the idea of free will. Why, you may ask. Well, because if we are controlled by the laws of physics, then obviously we can't be held morally accountable for what we do, and thus we can't have free will.

This might be a problematic viewpoint, though.

Are Free Will and Consciousness Magic?

First of all, why are we so obsessed with the idea of free will?

It's mostly due to the fact that if we are to accept that free will, in the way that it's commonly accepted, does not exist then people can't be held accountable for their actions; people can't be blamed for what they do since they are simply victims of circumstance.

Our concept of free will includes two essential features:

1. Free will is undetermined
2. Free will is required for moral responsibility

The first feature is something that people and scientists generally are unwilling to let go of. The world has been shown to be deterministic, so the first feature needs to be thrown out the window.

But what about the second one? Is it required to throw moral responsibility out the window, too?

Lee Siegel, a magician, explains in his book "The Net of Magic" the following:

“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”

A lot of people have a very similar approach to both consciousness and free will: the type of consciousness and free will that they want to exist is magic. And since magic doesn't exist, consciousness and free will can't exist; whenever you give them a different definition of the two, they are not "real magic".

Does the Lack of Free Will Make a Moral Difference?

A lot of people are familiar with the studies made where people are hooked up with an fMRI scanner, and told to press buttons, either the right or the left, which have conducted that the it's possible to predict the test subject's behavior even up to ten whole seconds before the conscious decision to press a certain button.

This has been used to refute the idea of moral agency altogether. And on the surface it makes sense: the test subjects were not aware of their decisions prior to making them, so a clear dilemma seems to develop regarding the idea of moral responsibility, which relies on the idea of us being completely in the driver's seat at all times.

What the discussion of free will has created is this idea that when we do wrong it's simply a result of us being wired wrong. And there's value in that, in my opinion, yes. I was not born with a psychopath's brain, so it's easier for me to function in society in a way a non-psychopath functions.

But I would argue against the idea that we are not morally responsible for what we do. I don't quite accept using the test result of a study where people make arbitrary decisions about pushing a button as an argument against moral responsibility regarding actual moral decisions - which arbitrary button pressing isn't.

Free Will is a Social Construct

Now, when I say social contract, I don't mean to argue for the absurd idea that everything is social construct. I'd even argue that few things are. Social constructs do exist, though, and free will is one of them.

Taking a page out of Hobbes' book, literally - the Leviathan to be exact - in which Hobbes claimed that when we created the social contracts that we did, we created good and evil themselves - and not just the concepts for good and evil, good and evil themselves. As we created good and evil, we also created moral responsibility.

Is it real? It's real enough to matter.

My claim is that the idea of separating our consciousness from the rest of us is fundamentally wrong, when discussing moral responsibility.

If an individual does harm to another, that individual is responsible for the harm caused, regardless of whether or not he was aware of the mechanisms within him that caused him to behave in a certain way. That individual is the cause of those actions. He can be seen as the harm doer, since all of the mechanisms in his brains are just as much a part of him as the part of him that is conscious.

There is no separating the two.

The criteria that we set for morally responsible actors usually are:

• The person is informed about the results of his or her actions

• The person has desires that are manageable; an obsession to hurt others, for example, will remove you from the morally responsible class

• The person responds to reason

• The person is not being controlled by another agent

None of these require the level of consciousness of the individual to reach every part of his decision making. In fact, I'd argue, the illusion regarding the conversation of free will is the idea that an individual is not responsible for himself simply because he reacts to the laws of physics.

The laws of physics do not effect everybody the same way, but people's reactions vary, and as long as there is variation in people's behavior, there is a need to hold people accountable for the ways in which they react to the world.

So, free will does not exist in the traditional sense. It is a social construct, but it's not worse off because of it, or any less valuable. The agent that is moved by the world is simply larger than just the consciousness.

What is means to be free is that we could have done otherwise, and this is really important. To be free, it is required that our actions are not controlled by another agent.

Let's say I'm buying a pack of cigarettes, and I really want a pack of blue Smart. This is because of the fact that I've grown to like blue Smart due to the positive experiences I've had with blue Smart in the past. I am not fully aware of all the mechanisms that lead to me liking blue Smart over other brands, but such is the case. Had I reacted differently to blue Smart, and had factors been in place for me to like red L&M, instead, I'd be free to choose that, instead.

The situation changes drastically in these two examples:

• A gun is pointed to my head, and I am told to purchase red L&M, instead; my will to survive will cave in to the demands of the person threatening me, and I will purchase a pack of red L&M

• Packs of red L&M are equipped with futuristic mind controlling nano machines that short circuit my brain into desiring red L&M instead the blue Smart I usually buy

In these two instances, I am being controlled by other agents, and I am unable to choose otherwise.

In the first scenario I am, of course, able to choose to receive a bullet in my head, but it goes against my will to live, so I choose the easier way, which is to comply. Yes, you're probably saying that my conscious part is not free to make the decision since my survival instinct is just that - an instinct - but my agency as a whole has been stripped of the ability to weigh other options in a fair way.

In the second scenario I am being completely mind controlled by an outside force, so the conscious and subconscious parts of my have been shut down from decision making altogether.

Everybody can see the difference in me purchasing a pack of cigarettes as I choose, and the other two scenarios.

Can the part of me that is conscious been able to choose otherwise in regards to what cigarette brand I like? Probably not, most likely not. But that doesn't remove the act of decision making from me as an individual, since everything that goes on in me is a part of me.

So, free will is not magic and moral responsibility is real.

I argue that free will exists in every way it matters. It being a social construct doesn't make it any less real; hockey is a social construct, yet hockey is very real. Money is a social construct, and money is real.

If you don't believe money isn't real, wait till you have none.

Same with free will: wait until there is a gun to your head - and you will realize that free will is real.

Image sources: 1, 2