One of the biggest philosophical problems concerning free will is the attempt to create a level of reconciliation between freedom and the determinism that seeks to promote the idea of cause and effect. This is especially the case considering that the latter promotes the idea that the events that take place in the world are all a part of a great causal chain that cannot be broken. Determinists believe that there is no such freedom and that instead; all events that take place in the world are predetermined by nature or a divine presence. Compatibilists, on the other hand, define freedom as being influenced not only by previous events, but also by the free will of individuals which also have an influence on the actions that they are likely to take in their own lives. As a result, compatibilists are of the opinion that determinism through the will of individuals ensures that they are able to take moral responsibility for their actions. Additionally, the libertarian perspective is one that states that the will of individuals is free as long as it is not determined by previous events; allowing for alternative choices to be made despite the presence of the same pre-existing conditions. In this paper, there will be an attempt to understand free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility.
One of the most prominent aspects of Smilansky’s concept of freedom is that he seems to go against determinism by proposing that individuals in society, such as criminals, have to undergo a lot of suffering for actions that were beyond their control (Smilansky 492). This is a highly significant observation because it is a direct challenge against the concept of determinism that proposes that all events that take place have been pre-determined. Smilansky seems to propose that incompatibilists such as Pereboom tend to dismiss the aspects of life that are beyond the control of human beings and instead focus mainly on their own actions. Therefore, there is the proposal that those actions that individuals take that go against the norms of their societies should not be treated with the harsh punishments that they end up receiving. This is because the actions that these individuals take are often predetermined by past events. The suffering that they have to undergo as a result of the punishments that they receive is unjust since they do not allow for an understanding of events being out of their control. There should be a deep appreciation of situations outside the control of individuals to ensure that there are less punitive attitudes in society that can in turn significantly reduce the toll that is often taken by the legal systems that have been set up to establish order. Thus, since actions are ultimately out of the control of individuals as a result of past events, it is important to make sure that individual actions are treated with the same justification; allowing for an understanding of the manner through which conditions outside their control can affect the lives of individuals.
Smilansky further states that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control (Smilansky 492). As a consequence, the actions of individuals that are appreciated from a compatibilist point of view is not based on their achievements, but on luck; meaning that the individual himself is inconsequential. Without the appreciation of the individual, the concept of free will comes into question because the individual seems to have no choice but to follow the path that has been determined for him by past events. Without free will and the appreciation for the individual, the compatibilist perspective, according to Smilansky, is one that fails to appreciate the manner through which society ends up promoting such vices as injustice and arbitrariness. In a direct challenge to the compatibilist perspective, Smilansky promotes the ideas propagated by the neo-compatibilist appreciation for individuals (Smilansky 496). He considers this appreciation not to be shallow and instead, it is a means through which there can be an acceptance that the capacity to understand the actions of individuals is not possible. This capacity does not exist and instead, individuals in society are not able to make sure that they determine their own future; meaning that the concept of the free will is a fiction and should not be taken at face value. It is morally outrageous to base the motivations of the actions of individuals on the aspects concerning their natures that are predetermined and instead, it is essential that there should be an appreciation that these aspects do not exist. As a consequence, the various characteristics that are displayed by individuals are self-originated; meaning that it is essential for the actions that these individuals take be determined from the perspective of these individuals rather than as some pre-determined event. This is an opinion that is corroborated by Pereboom, who points out that knowing that the actions of individuals are ultimately pre-determined does not necessarily mean that their moral responsibilities are erased (Pereboom 478). On the contrary, the ability of individuals to make decisions concerning their own lives and actions have to be appreciated, even though this notion might go against the traditional concepts of the predetermination of events.
Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will (Pereboom 479). This is especially the case considering that all of the actions that individuals take have been predetermined and that despite their best efforts, it is likely that their destinies have already been set. However, there are instances where individuals have the ability to exercise their free will because despite their actions being predetermined, individuals have a certain capacity aimed at bringing about an understanding of the consequences of their actions and making a decision concerning the best way to approach these actions. While this may be the case, individuals do not have absolute free will and there are cases where their actions end up being determined by the conditions taking place in their environment in such a way that shows that they are not masters of their own destinies and that there are some aspects of their lives that are not absolutely under their control. Therefore, free will seems to be incompatible with determinism because the latter is a concept that is based on the belief on the absolute lack of control of individuals over their lives, while free will is one that promotes the idea that individuals have complete control over their own destinies. Free will has no place in a concept that seeks to promote the idea that all agents in the world have no will of their own and are instead controlled by those aspects of nature that predetermine events and their outcomes. As a result, the belief in the free will of individuals is based on the falsity of determinism because it is the only way through which there can be acceptance that agents have free will and that they can control their own destinies without any interference from outside forces. On the other hand, determinism is based on the absolute denial of free will because the latter goes against all of its principles which consider outside forces to be of greater importance in influencing events that take place.
Free will can be considered to be an illusion that is propagated by members of society in order to make sure that there is the achievement of a certain agenda. This is especially the case considering that the ideas concerning free will have been especially prominent in the contemporary world to such an extent that the richest states are increasingly promoting ideas concerning it to other countries in the globe. However, the main purpose of propagating this idea is not because of any significant concern about the welfare of their fellow human beings, but instead, it has been based on the need to promote a globalized western culture that can enhance the latter’s economic strength. Free will is an illusion because individuals in society tend to be significantly restrained by laws that ensure that they are compliant with whatever authority is in power at a given time. The advancement of this concept is, therefore, not straightforward because there is a failure to recognize that the ability of individuals to determine their own fate is highly limited. Other factors of nature as well as the society around them have a more significant influence on the lives of individuals because these forces are vastly superior to human beings and what they represent. Therefore, the idea of free will, which is built on the assumption that individuals have a choice when it comes to some of their actions, is not realistic because it does not put into consideration the aspects of nature that are more powerful in determining the fate of individuals that the choices that they make. All the choices that are made by individuals tend to be highly influenced by their environment to such an extent that it is only after an assessment of their relationship to the latter that they are able to make a decision concerning the next step that they should take towards bringing about the achievement of their desired results. The illusion of free will is, consequentially, a means through which individuals in society are able to feel secure rather than a tangible reality.
Dispelling the illusion of free will would have the effect of bringing about an end to society as it currently is because it would bring to the fore the reality that individuals are not necessarily in control of their destinies. Instead, a situation would develop where it is nearly impossible for individuals to live in a secure way since they would not feel like they were in control of their futures. Being at the mercy of external forces in the ancient world was one of the reasons behind the human creation of religion as a means of explaining the occurrences taking place in the natural environment that also had a direct effect on them. The result was that it provided with relief even in situations where they came to attribute their lives and these occurrences to divine beings. However, as they came to feel secure in their communities and in a sedentary life, the fear of the natural environment seems to have waned; to be replaced with the belief that they could determine their own destinies. This belief has remained prevalent to the contemporary world among a majority of the global population to such an extent that to reveal that free will is only an illusion would possibly bring about an end to society as it is currently. The result would be that society would end up reacting in a way that seeks to promote the continued illusion of free will in order to prevent itself from disintegrating. Accepting the truth concerning the lack of free will would be extremely difficult especially considering that this concept has been the mainstay of society for a long time and has brought about a situation where individuals feel secure in their environment as well as their long-held beliefs concerning the realities of their lives. Thus, the denial of free will would bring in a situation where the belief in naturalism becomes prevalent because it promotes the belief that all events that take place in the world are beyond human control and that they take place because they have been preset in order to make sure that a certain purpose is fulfilled.
Because naturalism denies that individuals have free will, the ideas that it propagates tend to be nearly completely ignored since this information could prove to be too dangerous. To find out that free will is an illusion has the potential of bringing about an end to the moral standards and norms that have guided society for many years and could instead lead to a situation where it is difficult for individuals to remain loyal to the current social order. The disillusionment with the concept of free will could end up significantly altering the social landscape and could lead to chaos as individuals seek to promote their self-interest at all costs. The rules that have helped govern society would end up being disregarded because individuals would come to the realization that they are of no use since their destinies have already been predetermined by forces greater than themselves. The reality of the illusion of free will is probably only recognized by a few individuals in society and these find it necessary to keep it from the rest because such a revelation would bring about an end to order and let in anarchy. The vast majority have to be misled so that they do not come to contest the very aspects of society that hold them together and instead give in to their baser instincts. The self-confidence and belief in their own superiority that has held human society together for thousands of years could be brought to an end if free will were revealed to be an illusion; meaning that the continued denial of the truth would be essential for the continued survival of society.
Finding out that there is no free will could, therefore, be considered to be the end of society because individuals would likely end up being more individualistic in their perception of the world. This is especially considering that incompatibilists believe that free will is incompatible with determinism; meaning that there are forces that are greater than individuals which determine the course of their lives. Such concepts as moral responsibility could come to an end because individuals would come to the realization that the need not follow moral codes since to do so would be useless. The knowledge that actions are predetermined by past events rather than the decisions that are made by individuals in the contemporary world has the potential of leading to a change in behavior in such a way that the zeal to live and the joys that are derived from it would come to an end. Instead, the actions associated with everyday life could be brought to an end in such a way that there is little motivation among individuals to make sure that they seek to improve their lives for the better.
In conclusion, the discussion above has sought to develop an understanding of free will through the ideas of Pereboom and Smilansky because they both seek to bring about concepts that go against the traditional concepts of libertarianism, and compatibility. It has shown Smilansky’s opinion that the compatibilist appreciation for persons is extremely shallow because it does not consider the individual independently of the factors beyond their control. Additionally, Pereboom, in support of the concept of incompatibility, proposes that determinism is true of the whole world and that no agent that exists possesses any free will. Therefore, both of these authors feel that the concept of free will is an illusion since it does no factor in the belief that there are forces which predetermine the destinies of all the agents in the world.
Pereboom, Derk. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Smilansky, Saul. Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centrality of Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
