by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
I've noticed that the Dish has given a lot of space recently to posts skeptical of the existence of free will, be it arguments made by neuroscientists or philosophers. With regards to the latter, I'm just concerned that you create the impression that, in line with the perception of philosophers as a little odd and counterintuitive, they unanimously doubt the reality of free will, which isn't the case at all. From my experience, I'd say more philosophers are compatibilists than incompatibilists about free will. That is, they do not think the truth of scientific determinism means free will is impossible, and they don't think it undermines human emotions like hate, praise and so on either.
This tradition started with Hume, and has been continued more recently by the likes of AJ Ayer and Peter Strawson – two major figures in 20th century philosophy. It's difficult to explain, because many people obviously do think the truth of determinism means we cannot choose what to do, and free will, praise and blame are thus in real trouble. But to sum up their thought as succinctly as possible: they simply point to the fact that, say, as children, if presented with a choice of chocolate or strawberry ice cream, we would then proceed to pick one or the other, and our mothers would tell us this was an act of freedom. It doesn't matter whether a causal story could be told which explained why we asked for chocolate – so long as we simply say it, that's what freedom is. To expect anything more is, they claim, to misunderstand the concept.
If you agree with them, then, the fact that a murder was caused by the collision of atoms in a brain does nothing at all to detract from the fact that the action was free – it flowed from them – and hate is perfectly rational as a response to evil.
The Dish 