Free Will

The Philosophy circle session 1

What is free will?

What does it mean to be free? Before we start the session lets see how many of us believe that we have free will over our actions

Rub your hands together vigorously.

The friction that occurred from vigorously rubbing your hands together caused the hands to heat up.

There is a theory that everything that happens in the universe has a cause. This is called the theory of universal causation. Without causation, science, which relies on observing and predicting outcomes from identical circumstances, would not work. When an individual is ill, doctors must establish the cause before they can offer a cure. So, can universal causation also be the determining factor in regard to human action? Are humans truly free to make decisions in a given situation, or do all the circumstances that led to that person being in that specific situation, determine an inevitable outcome?

The Leopold-Loeb case

In 1924 in Chicago, 14 year old Bobby Franks was kidnapped and brutally murdered on his way home from school. The murderers were soon caught, but everyone was shocked at their identity. They were two bright teenagers from wealthy families, living lives of privilege. Their names were Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold.

 Loeb was 18, and the youngest graduate in the history of the University of Michigan. Leopold was 19, and already a nationally renowned ornithologist and University of Chicago graduate. He was getting ready to start Harvard Law School. The two brilliant young men formed a bizarre relationship. They followed the teachings of Nietzsche, especially his idea of the Super Man, and planned to commit the perfect murder.

 They kidnapped Bobby Franks, whom they knew slightly, beat him over the head and suffocated him with a gag. They attempted to bury his body in a swamp, then made a ransom demand to his family. However, Leopolds spectacles were discovered next to the body. As soon as they were presented with this evidence, the teenagers confessed. Everyone demanded the death penalty.

Enter Loeb and Leopolds defence lawyer Clarence Darrow.

He knew the teenagers were guilty and did not argue with any of the evidence. He put forward a guilty plea, rather than the not guilty plea that everyone expected. He waived their right to a jury trial and tried their case directly to the judge. His arguments in defence of Loeb and Leopold reveal his hard determinism.

Darrow argued that, although the young men had murdered Bobby, it was not their fault.
He blamed a variety of outside factors:
THEIR YOUNG AGE THEIR PARENTS THEIR NANNIES THEIR WEALTH

THE TRIAL BECAME A MEDIA SPECTACLE

WORLD WAR 1

THEIR HORMONES

DETECTIVE NOVELS

NIETZCHE

COLLEGE PROFS

 During the 12-hour hearing on the final day, Darrow gave the finest speech of his career. It included the following:
THIS TERRIBLE CRIME WAS INHERENT IN HIS ORGANISM, AND IT CAME FROM SOME ANCESTOR IS ANY BLAME ATTACHED BECAUSE SOMEONE TOOK NIETZSCHES PHILOSOPHY SERIOUSLY AND FASHIONED HIS LIFE UPON IT?...IT IS HARDLY FAIR TO HANG A 19 YEAR OLD BOY FOR THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WAS TAUGHT HIM AT THE UNIVERSITY!

 In the end, Darrow succeeded. The judge sentenced Leopold and Loeb each to life imprisonment for the murder, plus 99 more years each for the kidnapping. Against the odds, the teenagers had avoided the death penalty. Loeb was later killed in a prison fight and Leopold was released from prison in 1958.

Hard determinism
This story highlights what hard determinism iswho thinks they can come up with some sort of definition?

Libertarianism
As a clue for the definition of libertarianism it is the opposite and contains the word libertydefinition anyone?

Hard Determinism
The theory that all human decisions and actions are determined by other events and actions that happened prior to that moment. This removes any individual moral responsibility as a persons decisions are determined by external factors.

Libertarianism (Free will)

The theory that we are free to act as we wish and therefore the individual is morally responsible for their own actions as people are self-determining, which means they make their choices of their own volition.

When referring to a persons free will, people often assume it equates to some kind of permission slip; I want to do this, I have free will, therefore, I can. But just how free are we to make our own choices? Can you choose to fly, for instance, become God or even the Pope? Free will can only work in the parameters of the surrounding influences that may indeed limit it. Give an example of such limitations from each of the following influences:

Family

Genetics & Environment

Natural Law

Society

Religion

Conscience

A couple of moral questions?

If I am forced to drive a bank robbers getaway car at gunpoint, can I be blamed? If I am forced to donate to charity at gunpoint should I be praised?

Consider: An army sniper is stationed on a roof in Baghdad. He looks through his scope, aligns his target, squeezes the trigger and shoots dead an innocent civilian. Q. Just how culpable is he? Task: Order the situations below from most blameworthy to least blameworthy

Most Blameworthy

Least Blameworthy

An argument against free will

Questions
Can we be given a set of laws if we have no control over whether or not we keep them?
Is it fair to punish someone who commits a crime if they have no control over their actions?

(C) Phill Allen 2009

Free will and Judaism

Free will is granted to all men. If one desires to turn himself to the path of good and be righteous, the choice is his. [A] Person should not entertain the thesis held by fools ... that, at the time of a man's creation, God decrees whether he will be righteous or wicked. (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Teshuvah 5:1-2)

But wait
In the Tanach it says a couple of things are perhaps dont sit so well with our previous statement:
The wicked are estranged from the womb (Tehillim 58:4) I will harden Pharaohs heart (Shmot14:4)

 If God truly hardened Pharaohs heart should he still be blamed for his actions? How can we address this problem?

Responses
Pharoah should not have been punished Pharoah still sinned and needed to be punished We dont have any free will but punishment still exists God did not decree that Pharaoh should harm the Israelites [He} sinned on {his] own initiation and [we was] obligated to have [his] repentance held back. (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 6:3)

Compatibilism
A nice place somewhere in between The theory that some human actions are determined by things such as values, desires and prior choices, but that the individual is still free to make a moral choice at the moment of decision and thus is morally responsible.

Where do you stand?