Free Will
I don't believe that humans have free will.
The following is a logical proof against free will paraphrased from Galen Strawson's book Freedom and Belief:
1. In discussing free will we are only interested in rational actions (actions performed for reasons) and those who agree that humans have free will will want to show that these rational actions are, or can be, free actions. Consequently, we are not interested in non-rational actions such as coughing or digesting.
2. The way a person acts when they act rationally is necessarily determined by the state of mind of the individual at the time of the action.
3. If a person is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for the state of their mind-- in certain respects, at least.
4. But to be truly responsible for the state of one's mind, one must have chosen that state of mind-- in certain respects. (It is not simply that one must have caused oneself to have that current state of mind; that is not sufficient for true responsibility. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to have their current state of mind and they must have succeeded in bringing about that desired state of mind.)
5. But a person cannot really say that they have chosen, in any conscious or reasoned fashion, to have their mind be the way it is, in any respect at all, unless a person already exists (mentally speaking) equipped with some principles of choice 'P1'-- with preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals, whatever-- in light of which one chooses how to be.
6. But then to be truly responsible (on account of having chosen to have your state of mind) one must be truly responsible for these principles of choice.
7. For this to be possible, these principles of choice must have been chosen in a reasoned and conscious fashion.
8. For 7 to be true there must have existed some other principles of choice 'P2' upon which 'P1's are chosen.
9. And so on. Thus, true self-determination (Free Will) is logically impossible because it requires the actual completion of an infinite regress of choices of principles of choice.
Fairly common sense, eh?
The following is a logical proof against free will paraphrased from Galen Strawson's book Freedom and Belief:
1. In discussing free will we are only interested in rational actions (actions performed for reasons) and those who agree that humans have free will will want to show that these rational actions are, or can be, free actions. Consequently, we are not interested in non-rational actions such as coughing or digesting.
2. The way a person acts when they act rationally is necessarily determined by the state of mind of the individual at the time of the action.
3. If a person is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for the state of their mind-- in certain respects, at least.
4. But to be truly responsible for the state of one's mind, one must have chosen that state of mind-- in certain respects. (It is not simply that one must have caused oneself to have that current state of mind; that is not sufficient for true responsibility. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to have their current state of mind and they must have succeeded in bringing about that desired state of mind.)
5. But a person cannot really say that they have chosen, in any conscious or reasoned fashion, to have their mind be the way it is, in any respect at all, unless a person already exists (mentally speaking) equipped with some principles of choice 'P1'-- with preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals, whatever-- in light of which one chooses how to be.
6. But then to be truly responsible (on account of having chosen to have your state of mind) one must be truly responsible for these principles of choice.
7. For this to be possible, these principles of choice must have been chosen in a reasoned and conscious fashion.
8. For 7 to be true there must have existed some other principles of choice 'P2' upon which 'P1's are chosen.
9. And so on. Thus, true self-determination (Free Will) is logically impossible because it requires the actual completion of an infinite regress of choices of principles of choice.
Fairly common sense, eh?
posted by spankidiots at 6:38 PM
38 comments
