Raise your right hand. Most likely you did not raise your hand, or maybe you did,
but did you decide whether or not to raise your hand, or was it pre-determined for you to
do what you just did? We like to think the choices we make are our own, but that may not
be the case, as free will may be an illusion, or not. The topic of free will is hotly debated,
as there is not full evidence for either side. This being the case, I still assert that free will
exists and intend to support that claim with neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and
physics. Even so, there are still opponents that say that free will doesn’t exist, but as
neither side has completely discernible evidence there are reason for disapproval. As for
the professionals who believe that free will does exist, I plan to utilize their finding to
support my assertion. The reasons they believe that free will exists ranges from quantum
mechanics to social psychology and philosophy. By the end, I aim to make a strong case
for the certainty of free will.
What is “free will”? There is no sense in asserting a position on the topic without
providing a clear definition of what is in the first place. “Free Will” is a philosophical
term explaining one’s capacity to choose a course of action among various alternatives.
Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the
concept of moral responsibility. In other word, they believe that when one acts with free
will, it is just to “satisfy the metaphysical requirement of being responsible” for one's
action (O'Connor). This is the reason why the topic is so hotly debated, as one has to
consider that if we have an innate need to satisfy this requirement, is it a part of nature
and the laws of physics?
Even though the topic of free will is still hotly debated, there are certain theories
that are grounded in factual science rather than philosophical conjecture. Physicists aim
to explain the universal aspect in predicting a human’s decisions; the Newtonian
approach if you will. The rationale behind the philosophers and physicist who don’t
believe free will exists is that they believe if all the variables in a closed environment
were known, then the outcome of what is going to happen next is also known. Thus, if the
outcome can be predicted then free will cannot exist, and on the basis of Newtonian
Mechanics it is true, to some extent that is. On the level we are used, as in regular size,
Newtonian mechanics apply. A common analogy used to explain this would be to
imagine a pool table, “if the exact weight of the balls, the angle of the shot”, and various
other conditions were known then “the exact position of where the balls will end up can
be predicted” (Tierney).
The naysayers surmised that the same logic could be applied to humans, in that if
the exact workings of every cell in the body, including the brain, were known than the
person’s actions can be predicted, however there is a fatal flaw in this theory. To debunk
the former theory, physicist looked down at the quantum level, where everything is made
of infinitesimally sized particles. These particles move in random positions that cannot be
predicted, therefore it was hypothesized that if we cannot predict the outcome of
subatomic particles then “we absolutely cannot know exactly how something will turn
out before it happens”, in turn effectively debunking former physics theories (Hartsfield).
This mathematical proof, dubbed “Bell's inequality”, gives us a choice between either
“giving up determinism” or giving the “existence of a reality that is explained by science
and measurable by humans”(Hartsfield). If this mathematical proof is undoubtedly true
and free will must exist, then why are there still unanswered questions?
The fact that free will isn’t an open and shut case is dawned by the fact that there
are other reasons free will may not be free. There are claims that all that Bell’s Inequality
proves is that free action exists, which is us choosing to do certain things, like crossing
the street or picking what to where in the morning, but free will lies in making choices in
ethically ramifying situations. This is the perplexing grey area between free will being
real and not real. Actions are a consequence of brain activity, but when we choose to act
spontaneously then “the conditions are sufficient for calling it free will” (Madigan). The
psychologists against free will consider it impossibility to spontaneously respond to an
ethically jarring situation, without having the brain act prior to one being conscious to the
response. The simplest interpretation is that basic “physical laws dictate when neurons
get activated and cross a threshold” that’s what ultimately leads to a decision, therefore
the brain formulates an answer, but we are not conscious of it until it is done (Krieman).
We believe that we are the owners of that decision, but it was the brains work, in turn
creating this illusion of free will.
Wait...if our brain is a part of us, any decision the brain makes is just us making
the decision; so free will is still free…right? Unfortunately, by that explanation there is
nothing free in free will because the earlier argument about knowing all the conditions
can be applied to this situation, as we are no longer a part of the quantum level. For
example, the neurons that are activated can be described with equations for what they're
doing and later the equation can be used to predict the response before it happens based
off of “natural biological influences” (Krieman). This still would not hold up because as
there are clear way to absolve this theory, as it doesn’t account for the random choices we
can make. Sure it can be said that we don’t really choose to eat as if we are hungry,
because biologically we will just want do it. However, the choices we make at random
are not predictable. Thus, reiterating the fact that there are certain random occurrences
preventing predictability, which then supports the notion of free will.
By now it should be clear that free will is… a confusing topic. There are strong
reasons for both sides of the topic, but hopefully it is leaning in favor of one rather than
the other. Life is not worth much without choice; if everybody were just following a
script they couldn’t break away from, there would not be much sense in living. That is
why free will is so important, not only does it ensure that we are our own person, but it
also provides incentive to live, to carry on the way we choose to. Without free will, how
would we ever hold ourselves accountable for anything we do? Personal responsibility
would cease to mean anything if everything was just destined to be. Personally, I consider
that the worst part of a nonexistent “free will” is the feeling of inferiority associated with
it. If everything just went by the book then one can misconstrue that whatever he or she
does will mean nothing in the long run. I do assert that free will does exist based on the
evidence alone, but even if it proved false I would still support free will as it is so much
more than just the ability to make a choice, it is the ability to know one’s life in in his or
her own hands.