The volition question and the downstream problems

[Phil Theehor]

I've read a number of great OP's in the philo forum that introduce a question and follow it with a beautifully-constructed position.

This will not be one of those. Rather, I've been wrestling the concept of volition and what it means in relation to free will and thus, accountability. So, what I'd like to do is give you the problem and see some different points of view.

A number of philosophers have written about the question of volition and free will. Look it up if you want to see the myriad of opinions. However, for the sake of the discussion, I’ll give you my simple view of the question.

Say you decide to have a beer. You’re thirsty, the sun’s over the yardarm, so why not? So, you consciously make that decision to walk to the fridge or the pub and get one. But, where did that decision originate? There were a number of factors at play in the decision, but did you decide to make that decision? Or was that decision merely a result of the inputs in your current situation interacting with who you are at that very moment?

I’m not sure how clearly I’m painting this, so I’ll ask it another way. You love porn and hate traffic. But why? You can give list reasons, like “porn gives me a boner” or “traffic frustrates me”. So, ask the question again, why does porn give you the boner? Well, it just does.

Any like and dislike can be regressed to the point where you just say “well, it just does”. Keep asking yourself (like a five year old) why you do what you do and eventually you’ll get to the point where you say “I just do”. The same can be said for any decision you make. Ultimately, what you decide is rooted in what you value. But why do you value what you value? Same answer… at some point, you just do.

Now, it’s where we get to the “I just do” part of the equation that the philosophical problem exists. If all of our likes, dislikes and decisions ultimately rely on how we are hardwired, how much free will do we actually have?

I mowed the lawn yesterday and had an enormous cigar while doing it. Why? The length of the grass annoyed me, I wanted a cigar, and I could have used a little relative quiet. But why did those three factors exist? Well, they just did. And here’s the thing, put me in that situation ten times and I will make the same decision each time. I’d like to think that I made the decision, but ultimately, that’s just how I’ll react in that situation.

Now, here’s where it gets problematic. If free will doesn’t really exist, how can we punish and reward people for what they do? If you apply this logic, the rapist doesn’t really choose to rape. Rather, his reactions are just the result of what he’s made of interacting with the situation in which he finds himself.

This, I find problematic. More than problematic, actually. It threatens my views on, well, everything.

What do you folks think? Can we hold people responsible for their actions?

[NoGravitas]

What do you folks think? Can we hold people responsible for their actions?

To further the problem can we generalise "people". There are families in the world with hereditary genes that increase aggresion making them more likely to commit violent crimes. Can we judge them by the same standards for said crimes?

[Archangel]

Whoa.

[STDSkillz]

Whoa.
http://zulfiqar.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/neo_whoa_1.jpg

[billy1980]

Sometimes people are just lazy or just a rapist. But if you dont think they had a choice to refrain from what they are hardwired to be predisposed to do you are wrong. Sometimes a chain of events can raise the odds of something bad happening like drinking. Some people are going to crash their car because they dont pay attention. More people will crash their car because they drank before driving. More people will crash their car because they were sleepy and fell asleep at the wheel than someone with a good nights sleep. These modifiers were choices by people to increase their odds at something bad happening. They chose to do something that indirectly caused a probable reaction later on.

There are lots of things that people are predisposed to do that they make a choice to do. Work for example, no one is predisposed to do that, but we still go. Not pissing on the toilet seat, a girlfriend of mine got me trained like a monkey to lift the damn seat up.

I understand what you are saying about preferences. Some people like the color blue and yogurt. But you can still decide to not buy a blue car because the black on is a better deal and not buy yogurt when you go shopping because that shit is really desgusting.

[redsox39]

Because, Phil. Because.

[Phil Theehor]

None of you are being very helpful. That goes double for you, Herr Arsehole.

I've reached a philosophical crisis and have reached out to the great minds of the GMF philo forum for guidance and I get... Keanu Reeves?

Lick Phil.

Oh, and STD, this would be a more appropriate photo for your response.

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww307/philtheehor/th_BillTed3.jpg

[Insomniac]

Now, here’s where it gets problematic. If free will doesn’t really exist, how can we punish and reward people for what they do? If you apply this logic, the rapist doesn’t really choose to rape. Rather, his reactions are just the result of what he’s made of interacting with the situation in which he finds himself.

And by this, our punishment is just the result of what makes up a society interacting with the situation it's in.

Or maybe we're not punishing, as God, because he's a sinner but because he committed a socially harmful act. While he never would have done any different, he had the consciousness to understand what he was doing was wrong and this separates him from the legally mentally insane who don't just hear voices but can't distinguish right from wrong.

Finally, perhaps the punishment helps to alter the situation in such a way that what people are made of is less likely to be attracted to commit a crime. If there were no punishment, many more people who have the possibility of rape in them would commit the crime. So in this way, the punishment is preventative of other crimes.

[Archangel]

So basically, what you're suggesting is that science has shifted us away from a notion of divine determinism to that of a social/behavioural/genetic determinism, with free will a short period of illusion in between?

The irony obviously being that the idea of nature determining our reactions to everything isn't exactly new, what with humourism and the four temperaments theory being older than the New Testament.

[Phil Theehor]

Finally, perhaps the punishment helps to alter the situation in such a way that what people are made of is less likely to be attracted to commit a crime. If there were no punishment, many more people who have the possibility of rape in them would commit the crime. So in this way, the punishment is preventative of other crimes.

Good point. Punishment and reward are necessary tools to shape behavior. My question is more "is it right?" We laud or despise people for their actions, but do they actually control their actions?

On a slight tangent, I've developed a lot more patience with stupid people over the last few years because I realized that they didn't ask to be stupid. They were just born that way. Be grateful that you weren't.

To a lesser extent, I'm losing emnity for assholes. I won't go out of my way to be around them, but ultimately I think they didn't ask to be an asshole, they just developed that way. Like the rest of us, they are no more or less than the sum of their experiences mixed with their basic make-up.


So basically, what you're suggesting is that science has shifted us away from a notion of divine determinism to that of a social/behavioural/genetic determinism, with free will a short period of illusion in between?

The irony obviously being that the idea of nature determining our reactions to everything isn't exactly new, what with humourism and the four temperaments theory being older than the New Testament.

Well-said. And this is the problem that I have. I don't want to believe in determinism. It undercuts my entire value system. However, every time I look at the question, that's the answer that I come up with.

[Archangel]

I'm fairly certain that at some point, some paradigmatic revelation will show that the "scientific" notions of determinism are as big a load of hogwash as the religious kind is now believed to be, and people in 200 years will laugh at us for having believed that shit.

However, one possibility for the rise in popularity of said notions may be that we find ourselves unable to cope with all the instances of contingency which we have forced ourselves to face by dismissing all or most of the old certainties, once seen as restrictions - which, in turn, paints a rather bleak picture regarding human nature's relationship to liberty: Namely, that the Renaissance was a fluke, and that man prefers a state in which he sheds himself of free will and places all responsibility for his actions upon forces beyond his control.

Our incapability to actively use the freedom we've been given from the boundaries of status, faith, ideology etc has left us without structure, without a foundation; thus, we now actively pursue the discovery of new shackles to bind ourselves with, because we prefer some form of slavery to any form of uncertainty. We didn't want the Moirae, the Norns, Karma, God etc governing our destinies - but now that we've seen that free will and the resulting responsibilities are scary, we try to crawl back into a blameless shell, this time made up of the inevitability of amino acid sequences and behavioural sciences.
It's no coincidence that the freest society on earth is also the most ridiculously unable to accept responsibility - if you slip and fall in Iran, you're an idiot for not watching your step; if you slip and fall in America, you can blame everybody from the cleaning crews to the architects or the city you live in for making you fall - or your parents, for not teaching you how to walk properly, or your genetic attention deficit. It's nothing short of the willing surrender of free will and individual responsibility for a few thousand dollars in damages - if that's freedom, I'll take slavery over it any day; at least there, I can rebel against a visible, foreign entity instead of chaining myself with a smile.

I believe that one of the problems is that in a society with hardly any boundaries (and thus structure) whatsoever, the definition of liberty has become a cheap, self-centered liberty from rather than a responsible liberty to. Everybody knows their rights, but nobody wants to know about their duties - the notion of personal freedom run amok in a society exclusively defined by material wealth. But if you don't really have to do anything anymore, whence are you supposed to get the will to do something, if not yourself?
And this is where the fallacy of Enlightenment rears its ugly head - because people are for the most part petty, stupid, and self-centered. What is an ocean of opportunity to the enterprising few is a deep and scary sea to most - the fact of the matter is that they were quite happy that it was forbidden to navigate it before. But now, the old laws are gone, and everybody's free to sail on it; and while those few who chose to do so built our society, the vast majority are looking for excuses to stay on dry land, or close to shore at the most. We admire Ulysses from afar, but we'd much rather be a reality TV "celebrity".

[Phil Theehor]

Everything you say (here) is true, Arch. I hate the idea of dismissing free will and thus abdicating responsibility.

But, I'm still stuck in a loop with the volition question. From where does the will originate? If you have great intelligence or character, what did you do to earn it?

And I'm not making this a science or religion question. For the purpose of the discussion, such attributes can be accidents of nature or gifts from God.

[Archangel]

Will always originates from inside the individual. There are deaf people who compose great music, people without legs who become (or stay) athletes, people overcoming severe mental or physical trauma to succeed in life - whether a rape victim becoming a great mother and wife, or somebody who almost burnt to death in a crash taking up car racing and winning championships - so those bitching about how they had to become criminals because their mommy wouldn't come to their shitty school plays can suck a dick.

As for the question about why one does what one does - well, will is usually superseded by habit, isn't it? If you're used to playing cards with your mates every Thursday night, or go to the gym every Saturday, then it's gonna be really hard to put that off in favour of, say, doing extra work.
But then, all habit does arise from a conscious decision taken at some point, and as for the rest, be glad that there are such things as social conventions which are the vestigial remnants of a structured society: You mow your lawn because somebody once decreed that lawns shall be tidy, and you are conditioned to agree - who cares whether it's for individual aesthetic reasons or social norms? You smoke because you at some point decided that the enjoyment you get from it outweighs the risks - again, whether you did it due to peer pressure, curiosity, whatever is of secondary significance, in my opinion - you made a decision at some point, and it is unlikely that you were forced into it.

I think that the definition of free will isn't so much about why you do something, but rather about you standing by whatever it is that you do - meaning that the difference between free will and remote control lies mainly, if not solely, in taking responsibility for your actions.

[Archangel]

There's a reason why the greatest artists excelled at working within the most restrictive forms of their craft - the tight, rigid structures/boundaries provided by, say, the fugue, the crucifixion scene or the sonnet gave them unlimited freedom to exercise their imagination precisely because they didn't have to worry about form. There's nothing that kills thought as well as worrying, that's for certain: If you can compose anything you want, the what will fuck with you so hard that you won't have much time for the how. We recognise Kobe Bryant's mastery of his craft because he is one of the best within the strict given rules and goals of the game of basketball - without that code, it would be impossible to recognise his brilliance, and even when he takes certain liberties with those same rules, they only reinforce the existence of that code.

In video game terms, linear games usually have better graphics than open-world ones.

In terms of life, imagine a world in which you got born into a place, a status and a profession, and stayed there for your life. Even if you had not much talent at being a carpenter, hunter, etc, if that was all you did for 20 years, odds were, you'd become passable at it. At a certain age, your elders would provide you with a suitable partner, and your existence was governed by the unshakeable certainty that everything in the universe followed the one set of rules taught to you by the one dominant school of thought. Now, within this incredibly rigid context, thought is by no means stifled; on the contrary, because there are limits, thought can fill out all the available space.

Now, however, we live in a world where yes, you are allowed to eat, fuck, marry, think, follow, believe, in short, be and do anything you want to; but the flip side of that coin is that it is you who must decide on those things. And to a lot of people, that is fucking hard; thus, they worry all the time. About what to wear. What to study. Whom to date. Where to move. You are constantly faced with decisions, choices, and worst of all, the consequences thereof, leaving very little room for thought.
The fact that in a society which gives you every freedom, many people voluntarily choose to join the armed forces - in a time of war, no less - speaks volumes about this phenomenon. If there is one organisation which eradicates contingency, it's the army: You're 18, and you have no idea which of the myriad opportunities before you you should seize, so you go to a place where good and bad, black and white, taking orders (a lot) and making individual decisions (hardly ever) are clearly defined. Hell, it's why I joined, way back when, not that it helped much.

And maybe, who knows, mankind's collective subconscious has decided that an overabundance of contingency is not a healthy state of affairs, thus using science to create new fears and set new limits. In the past 20 or so years, which - despite all - were the safest and freest in the history of civilisation, man has begun to set a whole lot of new barriers to free will - the irony being that now it is done in the name of liberty. It's the only way to explain the recent all-out assault on our ability to think, speak, and do for ourselves.

[freegood]

The virtual world is the way to go. You buy extra lives with credits. Problem solved.

[Archetype]

Free will is a misleading term. Probably because every time anyone uses the word they want something from you. Only figures that free will is bullshit too. Nevermind that the term involves an oxymoron.
But then again, maybe it's not, maybe it's just that nobody understands the definition of "free." Christ, the so-called leader of the free world, the defender of freedom, is the one with the biggest pockets and longest reach. Free should have a disclaimer that pops up at the bottom of your vision every time it's spoke "warning, the following statement involves an intention to have the speaker's weiner in your butt."

It's limited. It's always limited. Free is a concept like God. Even if we had every mind extension ever thought of, we'd still be stuck in a four cornered room, hindering our movement, controling both how and what we think. But that doesn't mean there's no will at all. You just can't do anything.