How does the concept of free will measure up?

Is free will an illusion, or are we in control of our actions? If we don’t determine our actions, what does? And how do these questions have real-world effects? 

These were some of the questions that emerged during last week’s philosophy dialogue, “Did My Brain Make Me Do It?” held at the San Marcos Public Library. 

The debate over free will is an old one, Jo Ann Carson, Ph.D., said during the discussion. 

“You can actually trace it back to Plato,” she said.

There are several major schools of thought in the debate over free will versus determinism, the belief that events are predetermined. “Hard determinists” believe the premise that no act is free if it must occur, and that in every event that occurs, antecedent conditions — whether known or unknown — ensure the event’s occurrence. This second premise is the thesis of determinism. Hard determinists also accept the implication of these two premises that no one is morally responsible. “Compatibilists” or “soft determinists” accept that every event that occurs has antecedent conditions that guarantee its occurrence, but they reject the premise that no act is free if it must occur. Soft determinists argue that actions are free if they are caused by the uncoerced desires and beliefs of the actor and, therefore, that people can be held morally responsible. “Libertarians” — in the philosophical sense, not the political sense — deny the premise that antecedent conditions ensure the occurrence of every event. They believe strongly in autonomy. 

Carson said that libertarians distinguish between actions and events. 

“Actions, unlike events, involve conscious intentions of human agents,” in the libertarian view, she said. “... They want to say there are some acts that are not determined.”

Determinism, Carson explained, has ancient and varied roots.

“The two primary sources of deterministic thinking are science and religion,” she said. “Which is interesting because people all the time think that they’re kind of at war with each other.”

The argument about free will, Carson said, has drawn in ideas from the fields of neurology, biology, artificial intelligence and other disciplines. The role of the brain and the effects that brain injuries, chemical imbalances, strokes and other conditions can have on behavior. Moreover, as one dialogue participant mentioned, conditioning that occurs during a person’s lifetime and the development of behavioral patterns can affect behavior.

“We all know that a lot of times there are mitigating circumstances,” Carson said, but the question is whether those circumstances determine some or all actions.

“As humans, we have a tendency to overgeneralize,” she noted.

The discussion veered into the debate over the role of consciousness. Free will requires consciousness, but there are debates among social psychologists and neuroscience experts about the nature of consciousness and whether it even exists. Some believe consciousness is an illusion, some believe it exists but has no real effect, and some believe it exists but is ruled by unconscious processes.

Carson pointed out that discussions of free will and consciousness can have far-reaching, real-world effects.

Whether or not someone can be held morally responsible for their actions — based on whether their actions were predetermined — can have ramifications for the criminal justice system, Carson said. In fact, two examples of criminal cases that included arguments about determinism were brought up during the philosophy dialogue. The first was the Leopold and Loeb murder case from 1924, wherein defense attorney Clarence Darrow argued that no act is free if it must occur and that every event has antecedent conditions that ensure the event’s occurrence, therefore no action is free. The second was the case of Stephen Mobley, who killed a Domino’s Pizza employee during a robbery. His attorneys argued that Mobley had a chemical imbalance in his brain that caused him to act impulsively and violently during stressful situations and therefore he could not be held morally responsible for his actions. 

Moreover, beliefs about free will and consciousness can affect people day to day.

“It does tie in to a lot of our presuppositions about how we make sense of the world,” Carson said, noting that whether or not someone believes free will is an illusion could affect that person’s behavior.

Carson included a list of references for further reading including “Consciousness and the Problem of Free Will” by John Searle and “My Brain Made Me Do It: The Rise of Neuroscience and the Threat to Moral Responsibility.” Neil deGrasse Tyson also had a discussion on “the illusion of free will” during a recent episode of “Star Talk” that can be found at overcast.fm/+OaZaeys2A.

Upcoming philosophy dialogues at the San Marcos Public Library will address online communication (Oct. 31) and valuing the arts in education (Nov. 7). The finale for the semester will be a deliberative dialogue on domestic violence (Nov. 14). The dialogues are held at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. Other discussions are held on the Texas State University campus in Comal Room 116. A full schedule can be found at Texas State's website.