Expert: Austin Cline - 7/27/2005

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
I know this isn't an atheism question but rather a question of the human condition.  Do we have free will?  

Joe injects heroin every day.  It makes him feel great.  One day he decides to quit.  How ever the addiction is to strong for him to break away.  He continues to use heroin to this day despite his desire to break the addiction.

If Joe has free will then why can't he quit?

Thanks in advance
Ben

Answer -
"Do we have free will?"

“Much depends upon how we define "free will." If it's defined as the ability to act without our decisions having causal antecedents, then it appears we don't. If it's defined as the ability to act without being coerced, then it appears we do.”

I agree, this question requires a definition of free will to be answered.  You mentioned causal antecedents which is a big word I had to look up :).  Basicly this means that every thing we do is somehow determined from all our past experiences.  Which I agree with.  Under this definition it “appears we don't” have free will.  The other definition you mentioned was “the ability to act without being coerced,” which I don't believe can stand as a definition of free will.   For example you have the ability to pick “A” despite the fact that I have a gun to your head and I'm telling you to pick “C” but does this mean you have free will?  In order to say yes, you must be able to prove that this decision was not dictated by a causal antecedent or else for reasons we have already agreed upon you would not have free will.  Thus the ability to act with out being coerced can not stand as a definition of free will for it fails to address the problem of causality.  So it would seem that free will is defined as the reason why we do the things we do.  My question rephrased would thus be what are the reasons that Joe doesn't quit doing drugs despite the fact that he “chooses” to.  This question would obviously be unanswerable without being able to analyze Joe.

"If Joe has free will then why can't he quit? “

“I'm not aware of any definition of "free will" which suggests that *every possible action* can be chosen and followed. If I have free will, then why can't I flap my arms and fly? If I have free will, then why can't I cause this chair to float in the air simply by thinking about it.”

You are making a very good point here there are some things I can “choose” to do that are not possible.  However doing nothing, which is all that would be required to quit doing a drug, is quite possible.  So in this case your point is irrelevant.

“Some "choices" cannot be realized because they are impossible. Some are unlikely to be realized because they are very difficult - there are physical, emotional, and psychological barriers which may not be overcome. Physical addiction is just such a barrier.”

How do you know this?  This needs more proof because it's the part of your answer that actually addresses my question.  You say as if it's set in stone somewhere that physical, emotional, and psychological barriers are very difficult to overcome.  Are they?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////Why?//////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Joe loves answering questions.  It's not so much the thrill of picking apart logically flawed arguments as it is the feed back from people who love his work.  Every time he reads their positive feed back his brain rewards him with a little dopamine.  In a way Joe is addicted to the drugs his brain rewards him with that he interprets as being the satisfaction that he achieves by answering questions.

  Are we not all just "life addicts," hopelessly addicted to our biological responces and past experiences to the point where all we have is an illusion of free will?

Enjoying our discussion thus far
Ben

Answer
"The other definition you mentioned was “the ability to act without being coerced,” which I don't believe can stand as a definition of free will."

It, or something much like it (like being free from constraints), is used in many philosophical discussions of the subject.

"For example you have the ability to pick “A” despite the fact that I have a gun to your head and I'm telling you to pick “C” but does this mean you have free will?"

If I pick C, I can claim to not be acting of my own free will. This is the compatibilist notion of free will.

"However doing nothing, which is all that would be required to quit doing a drug, is quite possible. So in this case your point is irrelevant."

You assume that it is possible - for someone suffering from physical addiction, it isn't. Yes it is *logically* possible, but that isn't the sense of "possible" which is relevant to "free will" discussions.

"You say as if it's set in stone somewhere that physical, emotional, and psychological barriers are very difficult to overcome. Are they?"

I didn't say all are difficult to overcome, I said that there exist such barriers that are difficult to overcome. If you disagree, go climb Mount Everest tomorrow. That "choice" involves a host of physical barriers which I submit would be difficult to overcome, thus making the "choice" of climbing Everest unlikely to be realized by you - *ever*, much less *tomorrow*.

"Are we not all just "life addicts," hopelessly addicted to our biological responces and past experiences to the point where all we have is an illusion of free will?"

Of course we are all influenced by hormones and chemicals in our brains. The existence of such causal antecedents leads some to reject the existence of free will because define "free" solely as being "undetermined." There are, however, a couple of hundred different ways that one can define the word and there is no a priori reason to insist that this and only this definition is admissible.  

Consider, for example, the multiple ways that the term "truth" is used in philosophy and the very different theories of what "truth" entails. The meaning of "free" in the concept of "free will" is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to regard it.

One might argue that a particular definition is the most coherent in this context. One might also argue that a particular definition mostly closely matches what people tend to mean when talking about it in the relevant contexts. Those might be two very different definitions, however. When someone says that they weren't acting of their own free will, people will completely understand what they mean (so it's not incoherent) - but the definition of "free" here may not be the same as the definition used by some philosophers.

"Enjoying our discussion thus far"

All Experts is best for simply asking a question; it's inefficient an unwieldy for conversations. If you are looking to learn more about free will and debate its implications, I recommend joining my site's forum where you'll find a lot of knowledgeable people:

http://atheism.about.com/mpboards.htm