Free Will

1
Free Will
2
Agenda

• What is Free Will? The Authorship Slogan
• Why think we dont have it? The Evil Scientist
  Argument
• The standard philosophical positions
  Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, Libertarianism,
  and Hard Determinism.

3
Our Question

• Our question is, Do we have free will?
• What is free will supposed to be?
• What is a will?
• What sort of freedom is at issue?
• I propose to table these questions until later.
• So lets just change the subject.

I dont understand.
4
A Picture of Action
The Standard Picture of Action
Whenever an agent acts, there are three distinct
elements
I want to, I choose to, I plan to...
Cause
Causes
1. The psychological sources of the action
2. The action itself
3. The consequences of the action
5
Authorship of actions

• SLOGAN We are the authors of our actions.
• This is a METAPHOR! Philosophers use these
  all the time, but they can mislead.
• Think What does the metaphor mean in literal
  terms?

6
Chasing down the parallel



Authorship of books
Authorship of actions
Certain text pictures appear in a book because
those text pictures are what the author chose,
decided, etc., to include.
You acted as you did because you chose, decided,
etc., to do so.
Explanation
The author is responsible for the content of the
book. If theres racism in there, shes
responsible. If theres beauty or insight in
there, shes responsible.
You are responsible for your actions. If it was
cruel or wicked for you to do what you did,
youre responsible. If it was brave, youre
responsible.
Responsibility
7
The Authorship slogan interpreted

• The Authorship Slogan If an agent P performs an
  action A, then
• Any full explanation for why P performed A must
  include her choices, etc. and
• P bears responsibility for A.

This will be my focus
8
Free Will Authorship

• Proposal replace Do we have free will? with
  Are we ever the authors of our actions?
• This means we stop asking, Do we have free
  will?
• Instead we ask
• Are our choices, etc., ever part of the full
  explanation for why we perform our actions?
• Are we ever responsible for an action we perform?
• If the answer to either question is no, then
  we will conclude
• We dont have free will.

9
Agenda

• What is Free Will? The Authorship Slogan
• Why think we dont have it? The Evil Scientist
  Argument
• The standard philosophical positions
  Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, Libertarianism,
  and Hard Determinism.

10
The Evil Scientist Argument

• I want to show why there might be a problem for
  authorship.
• STRATEGY
• Propose a case in which it is utterly clear that
  the agent is not the author of his action.
• Give reasons why we might think our situation is
  exactly similar.

11
Meet Al and the Evil Scientist
Al
Evil Scientist
12
The Evil Scientist Scenario
I hereby choose to raise my arm!

• electrode in the brain forced choice
• Is Al the author of his action?

13
Who cares about the Evil Scientist Scenario?

• Thats too bad for Al, but what does this have to
  do with us?
• Control by external forces
• Al
• Addiction
• Some people used to think that we are all in Als
  situation (and the addicts, too) what we want
  is determined by external forces.

14
Universal Determinism

• Definitions
• a total state of the universe a description of
  how things are that leaves no detail out, no
  matter how specific.
• Universal Determinism The total state of the
  universe at a time t determines the total state
  of the universe at every time after t it is
  impossible that the universe evolve in any other
  way.

15
Determinism and the thin red line

• According to Universal Determinism
• Where you can get depends only on where you start

Your life
Your birth
The entire course of your life is determined by
how things were a long time before you were born.
time
green start
The actual initial state of the universe
red start
16
The Evil Scientist Argument for Incompatibilism

• Descriptive Premise In the Evil Scientist
  Scenario, Al is not the author of his actions.
  In particular, Al is not responsible for what he
  does.
• Analogy Premise If Universal Determinism is
  true, our situation is exactly like Als in all
  relevant respects.
• Incompatibilism If Universal Determinism is
  true, then we are never the authors of our
  actions. In particular, we are not responsible
  for what we do.

17
Spinoza Said It Best

• Baruch Spinoza, Letter to G.H. Schaller (The
  Hague, October 1674) (trans. by R. Elwes)

Every individual thing is necessarily
determined by some external cause to exist and
operate in a ?xed and determinate manner.
Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while
continuing in motion, should be capable of
thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as
far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone,
being conscious merely of its own endeavour and
not at all indi?erent, would believe itself to be
completely free, and would think that it
continued in motion solely because of its own
wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast
that they possess, and which consists solely in
the fact, that men are conscious of their own
desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby
that desire has been determined
18
Agenda

• What is Free Will? The Authorship Slogan
• Why think we dont have it? The Evil Scientist
  Argument
• The standard philosophical positions
  Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, Libertarianism,
  and Hard Determinism.

19
Compatibilism and Incompatibilism

• Compatibilism Authorship of actions (i.e.
  free will) is compatible with Universal
  Determinism.
• Incompatibilism If Universal Determinism is
  true, then we are never the authors of our
  actions.
• Note The argument just presented is an argument
  for Incompatibilism.

20
2 Kinds of Incompatibilism

• Hard Determinism Universal Determinism is true
  so we do not have free will.
• Libertarianism We have free will so Universal
  Determinism is false.
• Note The Hard Determinist and the Libertarian
  agree about the incompatibility of Universal
  Determinism and authorship.

21
Summary of philosophical positions
YES
Universal Determinism and authorship compatible?
Compatibilism
NO
YES
Authorship?
Libertarianism
NO
Hard Determinism
22
Humes Theory

• David Hume (1711 - 1776)
• Hume is a Compatibilist he believed that we
  author our actions, despite the fact that
  everything is determined by circumstances that
  obtained before our birth.

23
Humes View
All men have ever agreed in the doctrine both
of necessity and of liberty, according to any
reasonable sense. (para. 3)

• The Doctrine of Necessity All human motives,
  decisions, and actions are determined
  (necessitated) by their causes.
• The Doctrine of Liberty All who are not
  physically restrained have liberty (i.e. free
  will).

24
Agenda

• Humes Positive Arguments first articulate (and
  criticize) Humes arguments for his own views.
• Humes Defense then articulate (and criticize)
  Humes defense against the Evil Scientist
  Argument.

25
Hume has two positive arguments

• Humes Positive Arguments first articulate (and
  criticize) Humes arguments for his own views.
• The argument for the Doctrine of Necessity.
• The argument for the Doctrine of Liberty.

26
Causation and Necessitation

• Hume holds that the relation of cause-and-effect
  is necessitating.
• Causes Necessitate If an event C causes an event
  E, then it is impossible that C should have
  occurred, and E not.

Humes Challenge
Let any one define a cause, without
comprehending, as a part of the definition, a
necessary connexion with its effect and I shall
readily give up the whole controversy. (para. 25)
27
Hume Causes Necessitate
A possible situation?
The actual situation
effect
effect
8
8
IMPOSSIBLE!
Any possible situation in which C occurs must be
a situation in which E also occurs.
cause
cause
28
Human Actions and Decisions are Caused

• A prisoner, when conducted to the scaffold,
  foresees his death as certainly from the
  constancy and fidelity of his guards, as from the
  operation of the axe or wheel. His mind runs
  along a certain train of ideas the refusal of
  the soldiers to consent to his escape the action
  of the executioner the separation of the head
  and body bleeding convulsive motions, and
  death. Here is a connected chain of natural
  causes and voluntary actions but the mind feels
  no difference between them in passing from one
  link to another (para. 19)

29
Human Actions and Decisions are Both Causes and
Effects
No Escaping!
Causes
Causes
the refusal of the soldiers to consent to his
escape
the action of the executioner
the separation of the head and body (etc.)
30
Humes Argument for the Doctrine of Necessity
(1) Causes necessitate if an event C causes an
event E, then it is impossible that C should have
occurred and E not (rather than some other event
E)
(2) Actions are caused Human motives, choices,
actions, etc., have causes.
(C) The Doctrine of Necessity Human motives,
choices, actions, etc., are determined
(necessitated) by their causes.
31
A Problem for Humes Argument

• So far, Ive been explaining Humes argument for
  the Doctrine of Necessity.
• Now, Ill switch sides, and explain why his
  argument may be wrong.

32
Schrödingers Cat
?
(50 chance)
Indeterministic Causation It seems that we
cause Tibbles death by putting him in the box.
But that doesnt determine that he will die.
33
The Objection
False
(1) Causes necessitate if an event C causes an
event E, then it is impossible that C should have
occurred and E not (rather than some other event
E)
(2) Actions are caused Human motives, choices,
actions, etc., have causes.
(C) The Doctrine of Necessity Human motives,
choices, actions, etc., are determined
(necessitated) by their causes.
34
Hume has two positive arguments

• Humes Positive Arguments first articulate (and
  criticize) Humes arguments for his own views.
• The argument for the Doctrine of Necessity.
• The argument for the Doctrine of Liberty.
• Humes Defense then articulate (and criticize)
  Humes defense against the Evil Scientist
  Argument.

35
Humes Argument II The Principle of Liberty
By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of
acting or not acting, according to the
determinations of the will this is, if we choose
to remain at rest, we may if we choose to move,
we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is
universally allowed to belong to every one who is
not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no
subject of dispute.. (para. 23)

• The English Translation Liberty is
• being able to do what you want to do, and
• being able to not do what you want not to do.

36
The Argument
(1) Liberty is the power to do (or not do) as we
choose.
(2) All who are not a prisoner in chains have
that power.
(C) All who are not a prisoner in chains have
liberty. (para. 23)
37
A Problem for Humes Argument

• Humes claim that all of us who are not
  physically restrained can act or not as we choose
  is very plausible.
• But is this what is at issue in the free will
  debates?
• Note Poor Al in the evil scientist scenario
  still has liberty in Humes sense. But we have
  found reason to doubt that he really authors
  his actions.
• So Hume has shown us a conclusion which is
  irrelevant to the free will debate.

38
The Essence of Compatibilism
There are two kinds of determination


Responsibility-undermining
Responsibility-friendly
39
Agenda

• Humes Positive Arguments first articulate (and
  criticize) Humes arguments for his own views.
• Humes Defense then articulate Humes defense
  against the Evil Scientist Argument.

40
Humes Version of the Evil Scientist
Hume is speaking for his opponent

• If voluntary actions be subjected to the same
  laws of necessity with the operations of matter,
  there is a continued chain of necessary causes,
  pre-ordained and pre-determined, reaching from
  the original cause of all to every single
  volition of every human creature. No contingency
  anywhere in the universe no indifference no
  liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time,
  acted upon. The ultimate Author of all our
  volitions is the Creator of the world, who first
  bestowed motion on this immense machine, and
  placed all beings in that particular position,
  whence every subsequent event, by an inevitable
  necessity, must result. (para. 32)

41
God is the Evil Scientist

• Humes opponent concludes God is responsible for
  all of our actions, and we are responsible for
  none of them.

For as a man, who fired a mine, is answerable
for all the consequences whether the train he
employed be long or short so wherever a
continued chain of necessary causes is fixed,
that Being, either finite or infinite, who
produces the first, is likewise the author of all
the rest, and must both bear the blame and
acquire the praise which belong to them. (para.
32)

• NOTE Theological entanglement is entirely
  optional.

42
Hume vs. the Evil Scientist

• Hume has two responses to his version of the Evil
  Scientist argument.
• The First Response We are naturally inclined
  anyway to blame people for their bad actions (we
  thereby hold them responsible)

The mind of man is so formed by nature that,
upon the appearance of certain characters,
disposition, and actions, it immediately feels
the sentiment of approbation or blame . A man
who is robbed of a considerable sum does he find
his vexation for the loss anywise diminished by
these sublime reflections? Why then should his
moral resentment against the crime be supposed
incompatible with them? Both these
distinctions are founded in the natural
sentiments of the human mind And these
sentiments are not to be controuled or altered by
any philosophical theory or speculation
whatsoever. (para. 35)
43
Hume vs. the Evil Scientist (Again)

• The Second Response God and his attributes are a
  really big mystery anway, so we shouldnt get too
  worked up about these theological matters.

These are mysteries, which mere natural and
unassisted reason is very unfit to handle and
whatever system she embraces, she must find
herself involved in inextricable difficulties,
and even contradictions, at every step which she
takes with regard to such subjects . To
defend absolute decrees, and yet free the Deity
from being the author of sin, has been found
hitherto to exceed all the power of philosophy.
Happy, if she be thence sensible of her temerity,
when she pries into these sublime mysteries and
leaving a scene so full of obscurities and
perplexities, return, with suitable modesty, to
her true and proper province, the examination of
common life where she will find difficulties
enough to employ her enquiries, without launching
into so boundless an ocean of doubt, uncertainty,
and contradiction! (para. 36)
44
Against Natural Inclination

• Humes first response seems to miss its mark.
  The question is not what we are naturally
  inclined to do the question is whether it is
  legitimate to do what we are naturally inclined
  to do.
• Suppose that we were naturally inclined to kill
  the loved ones of the people we hate. Does this
  fact about our natural inclinations make the
  killing legitimate?
• Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
• Is it true that we are naturally inclined to
  punish the guilty?

45
Against Humes Dismissal of Theology

• This is not a response.
• Theological speculation is not essential to the
  Evil Scientist argument.

46
Kanes Theory

• Robert Kane (1938 - )
• Kane is a Libertarian he believes that we
  author our actions, partly because our
  decisions, choices, etc., are not determined by
  antecedent conditions.

47
On to Kane Our Agenda

• Kanes Evil Scientist first identify Kanes
  problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom then review
  Kanes explanation of free will in terms of what
  he calls Deeper Freedom.
• Kanes Defense finally, show how Kane proposes
  to establish authorship.

48
Kanes Libertarianism

• Kane is a Libertarian he believes that we have
  free will, and so some of our actions are not
  determined.
• As a Libertarian, Kane can accept the Evil
  Scientist Argument for Incompatibilism.
• Kanes evil scientist Frasier of Walden Two
• Kane still faces a variant of the Evil Scientist
  Argument.

49
The Evil Scientist Without Universal Determinism
I hereby choose to raise my arm!
The problem isnt that Als desire is determined
its that its caused.
?
50
The Hard Problem of Free Will
While we act, we are, at the same time, acted
upon.
I want to, I choose to, I plan to...
Cause
caused
Psychological Sources of Action
Action
51
The Evil Scientist Argument against Authorship

• Descriptive Premise In the Evil Scientist
  Scenarios (Universal Determinism), Al is not the
  author of his actions. In particular, Al is
  not responsible for what he does.
• Analogy Premise Our situation is exactly like
  Als in all relevant respects.
• (C) No Authorship We are never the authors of
  our actions. In particular, we are not
  responsible for what we do.

52
Agenda

• Kanes Evil Scientist first identify Kanes
  problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom then review
  Kanes explanation of free will in terms of what
  he calls Deeper Freedom.
• Kanes Defense finally, show how Kane proposes
  to establish authorship.

53
Surface Freedom vs. Deeper Freedom

• Kane distinguishes between surface freedom and
  deeper freedom
• Surface Freedom being able to do what you want.
• Deeper Freedom freedom of the will

Walden Two-ers have maximal surface freedom of
action and choice (they can choose or do anything
they want), but they lack a deeper freedom of the
will because their desires and purposes are
created by their behavioral conditioners or
controllers. (p. 501, col. 1)
54
What is Deeper Freedom? A Simple Proposal

• Surface Freedom the ability to act according to
  what you want, choose, decide, etc. (All who are
  not a prisoner in chains have this, at least
  sometimes.)
• Deeper Freedom control over the shape of your
  own psychology what you want, what matters to
  you, etc.

55
Agenda

• Kanes Evil Scientist first identify Kanes
  problem with the Evil Scientist.
• Surface Freedom and Deeper Freedom then review
  Kanes explanation of free will in terms of what
  he calls Deeper Freedom.
• Kanes Defense finally, show how Kane proposes
  to establish authorship.

56
Kanes Defense Agenda

• Kanes 2-Prong Strategy Kane attempts to
  establish that we have authorship in two very
  different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs) The key concept in
  Kanes argument.
• Kanes Unstated Argument Kanes arguments that
  we are responsible for our actions.

57
Kanes 2 Prong Strategy I Two Kinds of Action






SFAs (Self-Forming Actions)
APAs (Auto-Pilot Actions)
Are determined (by character, habits, standing
motives, etc.)
Are NOT determined
Help form our character, habits, standing
motives, etc.
Do NOT help form our character, habits, standing
motives, etc.
58
Kanes 2 Prong Strategy II Authorship of APAs

• Kane needs to do two things Secure authorship
  for APAs and secure authorship for SFAs.
• For APAs Rely on authorship for SFAs. We are
  responsible for our APAs because we are
  responsible for our character.
• For SFAs ????

59
Kanes 2 Prong Strategy IIIAristotles Dictum

• How come Kane thinks he can rely on authorship
  for SFAs to secure authorship for APAs?
  Because he holds
• Aristotles Dictum An agent is responsible for
  an action that was determined by her character,
  habits, etc., (together with circumstances) only
  if she is responsible for her character, habits,
  etc.

If a man is responsible for the wicked acts
that flow from his character, he must at one time
in the past have been responsible for forming the
character from which those acts flow. (p. 503,
col. 2, bottom)
60
Kanes Defense Agenda

• Kanes 2-Prong Strategy Kane attempts to
  establish that we have Deeper Freedom in two
  very different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs) The key concept in
  Kanes argument.
• Kanes Unstated Argument Kanes arguments that
  we are responsible for our actions.

61
SFAs The Definition

• Definition An SFA (self-forming action) is an
  action or choice which contributes to the
  formation of ones character.

Not all choices or acts done of our own free
wills have to be undetermined, but only those
choices or acts in our lifetimes by which we made
ourselves into the kinds of persons we are. Let
us call these self-forming choices or actions
or SFAs. (pp. 503-504)
62
SFAs Examples

• Examples (For each of these identify the SFA,
  and the effect on the agents character.)
• Me and philosophy my decision to read
  philosophy contributes to my general bookishness
  now.
• Former Co-Worker His decision to quit drinking
  contributes to his general bitterness and
  irritability now.
• Teddy Roosevelt his decision to toughen up as
  a teenager contributes to his robust and
  ebullient personality as an adult.
• Mystic River The boys decision to get in the
  car contributes to his pedophiliac impulses now.
• Kanes Businesswoman her decision to help rather
  than hurry contributes to her warm
  humanitarianism now.

63
Kanes Defense Agenda

• Kanes 2-Prong Strategy Kane attempts to
  establish that we have Deeper Freedom in two
  very different ways.
• Self-Forming Actions (SFAs) The key concept in
  Kanes argument.
• Kanes Unstated Argument Kanes argument that we
  author our actions.

64
Kanes Unstated Argument

1. Kanes Assertion We (normally) have control over
   and responsibility for our SFAs.
2. Kanes Assumption if we have control over and
   responsibility for our SFAs, then we have
   control over and responsibility for our APAs.

(C) Authorship We (normally) have control over
and responsibility for all of our actions.
65
Assessing Kanes Unstated Argument Agenda

• Kanes Assertion How does Kane establish
  control/responsibility for our SFAs?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist Kane thinks theres
  a big difference between us and Al.
• Kanes Assumption Does control over SFAs imply
  control/responsibility for character?

66
The Positive Argument From Indeterminacy to
Control
If she overcomes this temptation i.e. her
ambition, it will be the result of her effort,
but if she fails, it will be because she did not
allow her effort to succeed. (p. 504, col. 2,
top)

1. The businesswomans effort to overcome her
   ambition explains her success if she succeeds.
2. Her allowing the effort to fail explains her
   failure if she fails.

(C1) Whichever way she acts, something she did
explains why she acted that way.
(C2) She controls and is responsible for her SFA.
67
The Negative Argument No Reason to Deny Control
These conditions taken together (that she
wills it, and does it for reasons, and could have
done otherwise willingly and for reasons) rule
out each of the normal motives we have for saying
that agents act, but do not have control over
their actions (coercion, constraint,
inadvertance, mistake, and control by others).
(p. 506, col. 1, top)

1. Kanes List The only reasons one can have for
   denying an agent control over and responsibility
   for her actions are coercion, constraint,
   inadvertance, mistake, and control by others.
2. In the case of the businesswoman (and in similar
   cases of SFAs), none of these reasons apply.

(C) The businesswoman (and similarly situated
agents) controls and is responsible for her SFA.
68
Assessing Kanes Unstated Argument Agenda

• Kanes Assertion How does Kane establish that we
  have control over our SFAs?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist Kane thinks theres
  a big difference between us and Al.
• Kanes Assumption Does control over SFAs imply
  control over character?

69
Kanes Responses to the Evil Scientist Argument

• Generic Response The Analogy Premise is just
  wrong!
• More specific responses

Positive Argument
Negative Argument
Unlike Al and the Walden Two-ers, we have
indeterminacy in our psychology.
Unlike Al and the Walden Two-ers, we are not
being manipulated by someone.
70
Assessing Kanes Responses

• Kanes two different responses can be countered
  by tweaking the Evil Scientist scenario so that
  the differences disappear.
• We seem able to do this for both responses.
• The argument against Authorship will then still
  work.

71
Two Evil Scientists
I hereby choose to raise my left arm!
Lefty
Curses! Foiled Again!
Left?
Right?
?
(50 chance)
Righty
Indeterminacy in Als psychology without
authorship
72
0 Evil Scientists
I hereby choose to raise my arm!
No manipulation and no authorship
73
The Evil Scientist Argument (one last time)

• Descriptive Premise In the Evil Scientist
  Scenarios (Universal Determinism), Al is not the
  author of his actions. In particular, Al is
  not responsible for what he does.
• Analogy Premise Our situation is exactly like
  Als (in at least one of the Evil Scientist
  Scenarios) in all relevant respects.
• (C) No Authorship We are never the authors of
  our actions. In particular, we are not
  responsible for what we do.

74
Assessing Kanes Unstated Argument Agenda

• Kanes Assertion How does Kane establish that we
  have control over our SFAs?.
• Kane vs. the Evil Scientist Kane thinks theres
  a big difference between us and Al.
• Kanes Assumption Does control over SFAs imply
  control over character?

75
Is Kanes Assumption Correct?

• Kanes Assumption if we have control over our
  SFAs, then we have control over the changes in
  our characters that result from those SFAs.
• Recall some of the cases of SFAs. Were they all
  cases in which the agent has control over the
  changes in her character than resulted from those
  SFAs?