Free Will, Morality and Society Management

Summary of my laymans view

R.M. Westerink, Woerden, August 2011

1. Starting Point: No deus ex machina reasoning

1.1 Human beings are completely part of the natural world. Free Will is not something additional to the natural world, like having a soul with a free will. This form of thinking though attractive for its simplicity and magic is just deus ex machina reasoning.

2. On Human Decision making

2.1 The concept of Free Will is connected to Decision making by Human individuals. Free Will cannot be exercised without a capacity to decide between options. 2.2 Decision making is a fundamental capacity of all animals, including humans, as a survival tool. 2.3 Decision making in humans has evolved in the context of both survival of the individual and survival of the human groups, on which the individual was dependent. For example: Family, Workgroup, Village, Tribe, etc. 2.4 Humans have to use their evolutionary developed facilities for their Decision making. These facilities include: - emotions and intuitions , - a capacity to remember and learn, - a capacity to construct, evaluate and decide between options. 2.5 The Remembering and L earning Process involves storing combined data on: - the experienced situation, - the experienced emotions and intuitions, - cause and result inferences 2.6 The Decision Making Process involves using situational relevant : - emotions and intuitions, - results of earlier learning s, and then: - construction and evaluating options in terms of rewards/penalties, - finally making a choice: the decision making itself.

2.7 The effect of the Decision making Process will reflect in the person s Behaviour. 2.8 As humans live in large groups, a person s Behaviour is subject to feedback by the people effected by his Behaviour, involving approval or disapproval . The concept of Good and Bad and Morality is anchored here . In cases of Bad the other people may try (as they may have learned the person to be repeatedly Bad) to avoid repetition. Their feedback aims the person to Learn and change his Behaviour. Here is where rewards and punishments from other people come into play.

B h i

D cisi

ki

F db ck: - Physic l W rld - Oth r P pl

2.9 As an individual s Own Interest can well be different from the Group Interests of the other people, their Good and Bad feedback can create situations of Interest conflict . Nonetheless the individual is dependent on other individuals, on the group, as well as the other individuals, the group, are dependent on him. 2.10 Best survival of at the same time - the individual and the group is helped by appropriately optimised personal capacities. For example to judge whether another person is a co-operator or a cheater. Evolution has provided us such hardwired facilities that make it possible and successful to live in large groups. These facilities are anchored in the type and sensitivities of our Emotions and Intuitions, and the sophistication of our Remembering and Learning and Decision making capacities. 2.11 Scientific studies on Decision Making Strategies finding best solutions for both Individual Interests and Group Interests are confronted with insoluble dilemma s. Still, an individual has to make decisions , frequently with limited information and then sometimes also quickly too! It is then understandable that these complex decisions: - are for a great deal taken by fast, unconscious processing. - are frequently perceived to be arbitrary, inconsistent , and made on gut-feeling.

R.M. Westerink; August, 2011

Page 2

3. Group Norms for Behaviour

3.1 Groups create and communicate Norms for Behaviour aiming to learn (or tune or programme ) the individual to behave in accordance with their interests. Which, in the end, may coincide with the individual s Own Interest. Usually the nor ms arise as results of Group Decision Making Processes, on which the individual may not even be able to exert influence. As the se norms are also dependent on the groups environment, Norms for Behaviour will change in time and vary between groups. 3.2 In larger groups with larger and formalised Norms for Behaviour we enter the concept of Cultures. People are to a great extent Culturally programmed . Although people are mostly not aware of that. They re aware of other cultures, which they find strange and not understandable. It even takes quite an effort to find out what in your own culture is going on and understand what only belongs to temporary phenomina in for example The spirit of the present time and Political correctness.

3.3 In addition to the demands of other people and groups on his Behaviour, the individual can be required that also the Results of his Behaviour are in line with external norms and expectations. 3.4 Thus, individuals are addr essed by a lot of External Demands on his Behaviour and the Results of his Behaviour . In cases these demands will be inconsistent and conflicting with his Own Interest. But also offering rewards. As the stakes can be high, decisions can involve substantial risks. Quarrels, getting fired, violence, imprisonment.. 3.5 To reduce those risks a person can seek several ways for risk reduction on their decisions. Like: (1): Decide as a group. Now we have Shared Responsibility. Note that shared Decision making frequently gives better results than individual Decision making. (2): Influencing Others to secure right results . (3): Follow an Accepted Decision Making Approach: Completeness of information, Procedures, Participants, Basic Political Correctness rules a nd arguments. (4): Follow a Defendable Argumentation Approach: scientific, theological, political.

4. Free Will and Decision Making

R.M. Westerink; August, 2011

Page 3

4.1 Normally a human individual is consciously aware of being busy with Decision making. We are aware of this capacity of the Self . We are aware of the possibility to make choices and actually make choices with an apparent Will to go for one of the options we perceive. 4.2 The concept of a "Free Will" is in particular relevant when personal Decision Making has a bearing to other people s, to groups interests. F.e. Religious groups, political groups, society. As we all are aware that individual s frequently try to achieve personal interest s against perceived risks on negative feedbacks from others, the concept of Free Will stresses to the individual his responsibility to make the right choices. The right choices of course from the other people s, groups perspective. The concept of Free Will is a very useful Meme - building on this sophisticated human capacity, developed by evolution, to learn and make decisions, weighing personal interest against other interests to make people aware of their Decision Making in the context of the other interests, holding them responsible and punishable. 4.3 Discussing Free Will becomes then much more practical to replace the concept by two more concr ete parts: (1) Decision Making Capacity (2) Decision Making Responsibility All aspects of Free Will, including determinism, can be discussed using these two aspects. Of course any supernatural aspects, like a soul steering Free Will is excluded ( 1.1) and unnecessary for understanding. 4.4 Viewing the human brain as a BioComputer, looking at its Decision Making Capacity is not fundamentally different from looking at an Electronic Computer . However, an Electronic Computer has of course no Decision Making Responsibility. The persons responsible for its programming and/or use may though be held responsible. Undesired results from Electronic Computers can be mended by changing settings and/or reprogramming. Undesired results from human BioComputers can , to a limited extent, be tuned by Learning.

5. Decision Making and Consciousness

5.1 Only part of the Decision Making process , with its emotions, intuitions, stored memories , etc. is conscious. 5.2 The conscious part, when sufficiently developed, can add conscious [rational] thinking as a tool to the decision making
R.M. Westerink; August, 2011 Page 4

process. And may use conscious [scientific] approaches on decision making strategies and methods. 5.3 Still a large part is unconscious and most of the time we are not completely sure how and why we finally decided.

6. Decision Making Capacity

6.1 As all humans are not equal in their hardwired capacities, their - Emotions and Intuitions - Remembrance and Learning capacity, and - Decision Making capacity, will vary These Decision Making Capacity variations can be substantial as humans can be deprived of parts of the as normal perceived emotions and intuitions system and learning and decision making capacities. 6.2 Having their hardwired capacities, humans are by learning culturally programmed or educated tuning their emotions and intuitions and tuning their way of decision making (3.2). 6.3 As we are only partly consciously aware of the decision making we cannot control the unconscious part (5.3). 6.4 Decision making may take place a s part of Group Decision making, or under the influence of others ( 3.5). 6.5 Thus, humans Decision Making Capacity is: (1) substantially limited by his hardwired and conscious capacities and (2) programmed by his group/cultural environment. 6.6 As we have large differences between: - Humans themselves, and - Their group/cultural environments, their individual Decision making options their Making Options S pace - will differ greatly.

Decision

7. On determinism
7.1 Humans are part of the natural world ( 1.1): All processes in our body including our brain - answer to physical laws. So, humans are subject to how the world developed/develops to its future. We experience that the past leads to only one future, now being the present. Here, philosophers struggle to see how such subjects can be actors, with a capability to influence the future. The simple
R.M. Westerink; August, 2011 Page 5

insight is of course that within the framework of nature s laws complex systems can exist in particular life where the future is also determined by these complex systems. Systems which can do more than the constituents of which they are composed: New things emerge . This is already true in the physical world. For example: Certain combinations of neutron, protons and electrons (i.e. atoms) behave different than other combinations. A particular combination now leads to, or decides, to a different future, than another combination would do. 7.2 Practically this means, that the future is also determined by hugely complex and interacting systems and processes, of which some are chaotic in nature. Chaotic: Minucule variations in starting situation lead to large variation in end result. 7.3 Human Decision making is such a complex system. A system that, to make things even more comp lex, works using fuzzy stored data in the brain and applying a fuzzy decision making processes. Fuzzy: Imprecise. The imprecision can come from the way the data are stored, the way the data are retrieved, the way the data are processed. 7.4 It can still be maintained that all these complex systems work in a completely deterministic way. This can be accepted as true for the Physical Level (The BioComputer / Electronic Computer hardware level). Disregarding any issues on quantum effects level. Chance comes in on the Information Processing Level , with its chaotic and fuzzy elements, and detailed results become (for humans, computers, science) unpredictable. 7.5 Anyway, these complex systems do exist and show Behavioural choice for animals and (partly conscious) Decision Making Capacities for humans. 7.6 The relevancy of discussing determinism is related to Decision Making Responsibility . Even when we are struggling with explanations on how the past decided to become the present, this needs not confuse our view on people s Decision Making Capacities and Decision Making Responsibility .

8. On Responsibilities
8.1 Giving a person a Responsibility is making explicit that he is subject to punishment and reward for certain behaviour or results. 8.2 As people can learn and adjust , this approach works and is the basis of cultural development.
R.M. Westerink; August, 2011 Page 6

8.3 Certainly it does not work as well for all humans, as we have seen the sources of possible variations in their Decision Making Options Space (6.6). 8.4 Legal systems can , and usually do, adjust to shortcomings in Decision Making Capacity . Interestingly , sometimes adjust even more to deviations caused by environmental programming. Like lenience in some countries to murder persons of own kin to maintain the honour of the family.

9. On Morality and Prevalent Norms of Behaviour

9.1 Moral Behaviour can be taken equivalent to In line with an important Group N orm of Behaviour . 9.2 Not long ago, the only thing that mattered, was being victorious. Contributing to personal and group survival (and wealth). Or even Meme survival (Religious, Political). Being a hero. In all the parts of the world where conflict is raging this is of course still the situation; and both fighting parties are handling in their view highly moral in their efforts for their group. 9.3 However, a higher level of Moral Behaviour can be taken to relate to Generalised Moral Norms of Behaviour , transcending the incidental group and cultural Norms of Behaviour , aiming to reduce interpersonal , intergroup and intercultural conflicts. 9.4 Our world (earth) presently globalising quickly , the circumstances were created to indeed formulate Global Moral Norms: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 9.5 With all those different Norms of Behaviour , people have even to come to some sort of decision making on which Norms of Behaviour to adopt! What is adopted, his Prevalent Norm(s) of Behaviour is dependent on the perception of the group level he wants to primarily identify with. F.e. Football Team, Motor Club, Criminal Group, Political Party, Nation, World This perception is formed by learning; the result from cultural circumstances: Actual living circumstances, Wealth, Political and Religious ideas, and Communication Infrastructure s. Spiral Dynamics is a good tool to understand how people and cultures function on different levels. With consequences for their Prevenlent Norms of Behaviour. 9.6 As a result, Generalised Moral Norms of Behaviour will frequently conflict with Prevalent Norms of Behaviour . And Prevalent Norms of Behaviour be seen as including Immoral aspects.
R.M. Westerink; August, 2011 Page 7

9.7 Individuals will find themselves frequently in changing environments where the y are for them surprisingly be made responsible in the context of changed Norms of Behaviour . Revolutions, The Hague International Court... The majority of individuals are just subject to, and victim of, histories grinding wheels. The y will not be able to be aware of their situation and do not have the capacities to cope with it. 9.8 How then, as an individual, in particular those individuals being aware of all the above, how then to behave Morally? The first and minimum element for a General Moral Norm of Behaviour is of course: - Not to participate in - or advancephysical/emotional/fi nancial destruction of non-violent others. Even a higher Morality level would be: - To non-violently resist, denounce these type of activities ; which usually is quite dangerous as it induces traitorship reactions. These are our new Hero s.

10. On Society Management.

10.1 Prevalent Norms of Behaviour and thus people s Decision Making Options Space tuned to them, vary inside a certain Legislative Space (Area) and certainly between Legislative Space s. The amount and extent of the variations will relate to the amount of incidences between people held responsible for actions against Legislation, or even held responsible for actions against other existing Prevalent Norms of Behaviour . 10.2 Society Management would strive to reduce the amount and severance of those incidents. 10.3 Society Management has to accept that making people Responsible to obey Legislation and applying punishments is a fundamental but insufficient instrument. Incidents reduction is needed in addition: (1) avoiding (amount/potency) variations increase, and (2) reducing (amount/potency) variations by programming of individuals to harmonise their Prevalent Norms of Behaviour to forms optimally accepta ble to all parts of the community. Both are usually not seen as a responsibility of a government. Which is understandable as governments are usually characterised by a temporary in-power situation of a particular stance of political conviction with a related particular form of Prevalent Norms of Behaviour . The Political Correctness trap.

R.M. Westerink; August, 2011

Page 8

10.4 Some of the Major Variations Area s within a society can easily be listed: - Cultural dive rgences: Religion, Heritage, Language - Actual wealth differences - Wealth/Education possibilities divergences between Social Classes, Males and Females, etc. - Amount of unemployment - Size of male population between 15 and 25 years of age 10.5 Some of the ma jor Society Management Tools can also easily be listed: - Learning/Education Schools, Television, Internet, but also Army Training, Manhood Initiation Rites! - Legislation and Persecution - Society Cohesion Memes Royalty, Our Great Leader, The American Dream, World Citizenship, War against others 10.6 What is relevant nside a society is also relevant between societies. 10.7 To achieve Morally grounded societies, even on the level of our global international society, it is indispensible to develop both Learning/ Education and Persecution systems. Persecution being part of the Learning, all those should be persecuted indeed publicly, on all levels, whether aware or not of the (9.8) General Moral Norm of Behaviour , that violated this norm.

R.M. Westerink; August, 2011

Page 9