Do We Have A Choice?
This is a collection of thoughts from a neurological standpoint on the concept of Free Will. Of course as a theist, our spiritual nature and the existence of God undoubtedly play a role in this discussion. However, the notion of Free Will that has been a source of contention for years, namely the concept that there are no “external” or “internal” constraints on our will, is something I wished to explore (essay written November 2016).
Do we have free will, “the ability to choose to act or refrain from action without extrinsic or intrinsic constraints”, as defined by American researcher Joseph L. Price. The fact that we constantly make choices does not mean that we make these choices freely. Today, we are armed with an ever-growing plethora of information generated by new discoveries in neuroscience, shedding light on important and abstruse questions concerning our free will, which had perplexed philosophers and scientists for centuries. In this essay, I will argue that we do not make truly free choices and that free will is an illusion. Finally I will discuss the implications this has on punishments for criminal acts.
First, I would like to state that we do not have choice over certain aspects of our lives, including sleep, eating, death, a predisposition to certain illnesses and injuries caused by external factors. But we have choices on other matters and are continuously making decisions about them, such as when to sleep or what foods to avoid in order to lead a healthier life but none of these decisions are made freely. To illustrate, in “Doctor Strange”, a new super-hero movie, the villain wishes to save the world from the pain and suffering time imposes, albeit in an unorthodox way. His motives for this mission arise from losing everyone he once loved. Thus, his past hardships ‘determined’ his ‘villainous’ course of action. How can we then hold him responsible for nearly destroying the world? None of his choices were devoid of intrinsic or extrinsic constraints.
We know now that, for example, schizophrenics have a chemical imbalance in their brains, which directly causes them to decide on choices they may not have made with a healthy brain. They may have a choice to, say, try to assassinate a president (true case), but neurologically their choice may have been adversely impacted and thus not free. In fact, we are all subject to the workings of our brain in every choice we make- there is no absolute freedom. Prenatal genetic factors and environmental conditions have life-long impacts on the structure and therefore function of our brain, which constitute our personalities. For example, visible differences in hypothalamus structure between heterosexual and homosexual individuals or between pedophiles and control groups has been observed, further proving that pedophilia or homosexuality are not “lifestyle choices”- individuals may have a theoretical choice in choosing partners but their sexual orientation has restricted them from choosing freely between theoretical options. The implications on these social issues are profound and far-reaching in terms of assessing social justice and whether or not we can persecute pedophiles for their sexual preferences or schizophrenics for murder.
I may have watched a captivating trailer a few days prior, which influenced my willingness to watch Doctor Strange. So to what extent can we assert that I chose to, for example, watch this film as oppose to another film? Everything we “decide” to purchase has in some way been advertised to us – advertisements influence and, to an extent, determine our choices. When the information about our choice has been transmitted back to the cerebral cortex, the illusion that we had a free choice occurs, by post hoc causal inference. In fact, the entire science of marketing is based on “creating” needs and wants in people, which leads them to “decide” on a given purchase.
Biochemical circuits in our bodies, causing the unconscious self to decide what to do, precede, not follow, the illusion of choice our brain creates before an action. Benjamin Libet’s experiments demonstrate that we only consciously acknowledge an action half a second after it as been initiated. We unconsciously make decisions in a matter of seconds- a skill that we have acquired through years of training, subliminally or consciously. Psychologist Daniel Wegner asserts that we possess an “unconscious will”, determined by our early development and life experience.
Moreover, our emotions strongly influence unconscious processes, such as when we are confronted with moral dilemmas. In these cases, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex instigates emotions like empathy or sympathy, which play an important role in our moral judgments. We can see this in Alzheimer’s patients when their moral judgments are affected by damage to this region of the brain. Other than emotion, temperature can also affect our actions. Hot temperatures are conducive to outbursts of aggression, which is supported by a study, showing that declaring war was more common in the summer - the choice to ‘declare war’ is not a free choice if physical factors such as temperature have an impact. If emotions and physical factors affect our choices, we cannot really say that ‘we’ have made a “free” choice if we didn’t consciously make it.
Skinner would assert that every action you deem as committed voluntarily has a cause, which could be dictated by extrinsic or intrinsic constraints. He says that we cannot believe in free will as Jonathon Edwards did, “because we know of our behavior, but not of its causes”. Through experimentation and the science of behaviourism, we can know of the causes of our choices/behavior, hence, there is no reason to believe in free choice or free will.
As illustrated, our thoughts, desires and convictions determine our future actions. This makes it difficult to assert that at any given moment you are making a free choice, as Price puts it “without extrinsic or intrinsic constraints”, for surely your choice to, for example, study philosophy at university is determined by your fascination for the study of knowledge and reality. But what if we redefine ‘you’ to be the sum of all your past experiences, beliefs, wishes etc., then surely this ‘you’ is the cause of your “choice” to study philosophy and when you make this choice unconsciously, the decision would have been pre-determined.
According to Sam Harris, there may be dangers in refuting the existence of free will, as people may stop caring about good or evil because it is impossible to ‘resist’ the choice to do either. However, we can draw differences between murdering someone and saving a life. When punishing someone, you are punishing the sum of their thoughts, desires etc. Complications arise when many of the factors that prompted you to initiate an action were out of your control- for example, being born as a psychopath (which led to you murdering someone). It makes it difficult to punish someone for something they had no control over. If all decisions are pre/determined from intrinsic or extrinsic constraints, society may be compelled to think about the punishments, even for innate behaviours such as kleptomania or pedophilia, it can justly assess.
The assumption that we are free to choose has led to misery and injustice in the past, such as when homosexuality was criminalized. However, the absence of free will may have positive psychological consequences; when you punish someone for immoral choices, they can not feel deeply responsible, for many of the things that determined their judgment were beyond their control.
Conversely, if we were to argue that free will is “to act or refrain from action without any extrinsic or intrinsic constraints” then the act becomes random and how could society punish someone for a random initiative without past intention or past moral beliefs or judgments.
In conclusion, I assert that we have choices and make decisions constantly, many of which are unconscious and without absolute freedom – our choices are results of neurological or environmental factors, and thus never “freely” made. Maintaining that we do not possess free will does not curtail our ability to punish individuals more than accepting free will does. In light of progress made in neuroscience, I am curious to see how society will justly punish individuals if we collectively begin to accept that free choice or free will, namely that no prior experiences or imprints impact your choice, are an illusion and how this diologue sheds light on the Nature vs. Nurture duality .
