Why There is No Free-Will (with Richard Carrier)

[Copernicus]

To me, hard determinists are essentially saying that one is not free to contradict reality--to step outside of its limitations. However, people never use the expression "free will" in that sense, only in the sense that one is free to choose goal-oriented actions within a realm of possibility. Reality can deprive one of opportunities, but free will is always limited by possibility of control over one's circumstances.

Consider how free will operates during a game of chess. I am free to move pieces, but my choices are limited. At the start of the game, I can only move pawns and knights, no other pieces. Am I being deprived of my free will to move other pieces? No, I can move other pieces. However, I can only move certain pieces if my overriding desire is to play chess. Can I choose not to play chess? Certainly. What if I don't have chess pieces or a chess board? Am I being deprived of my free will by such circumstances? No. What if I'm in a straight jacket and can't move pieces? Am I being deprived of free will? No, although I am being deprived of the freedom to move chess pieces. When actions are considered outside the scope of situational possibility, they are irrelevant to the concept of free will. Reality always imposes such limitations on possibility, but we still have this useful concept of free will that operates within the scope of possibility. Choices within that scope are perceived as free but subject to the dictates of desires. Taking away the freedom of action does not deprive a person of free will, just of possible options to take certain actions.

Where the argument gets tricky is when people are confronted with contradictory desires. For example, an alcoholic might desire to take a drink to satisfy one desire but also desire not to take another drink to satisfy a conflicting desire. Whichever desire is stronger will determine the choice. In that sense, choices are always determined actions. We don't hold the alcoholic accountable for being addicted, because alcoholism is an illness that happens to a person and is outside of their control. But we still hold them accountable for choosing to drink, because they understand that the choice brings harm to themselves and others. Taking away their car keys is not depriving them of their free will, just their ability to choose to drive a car. Pouring the liquor in a bottle down the drain is not taking away their free will, just their opportunity to fulfill a desire.

 

[Copernicus]

FWIW, Wittgenstein made exactly the same point I have been making--that the problem goes away when you just examine how the expression is used in ordinary language. In the 20th century, linguistic (analytic) philosophers often took the position that many philosophical problems, especially paradoxes, were caused by misunderstandings and misuses of natural language in describing them. At first, Wittgenstein joined with Bertrand Russell in arguing that one could create an Ideal Language for proper philosophical analysis--essentially formal, or mathematical, logic. Later, Wittgenstein argued that proper analysis of ordinary linguistic usage would be a better approach. He is credited with having been a pioneer of both the schools of Ideal Language Philosophy and Ordinary Language Philosophy.