Psychology concepts and applications

Psychology

Fate vs. Free Will: An Argument in Defense of Free Will

For centuries, science, religion, and philosophy have debated whether or not free will exists. If it does, it has significant implications for a variety of other important aspects of life, such as education, criminal justice, socioeconomic problems, etc. If one does not have the free will to decide whether or not one will commit a wrong, then it is not morally correct to jail that person for the wrong. What would be the use of this, as that person could not learn from his or her mistake and refrain from engaging in the same behavior again? Further, what would be the purpose of education in general if we cannot learn to make correct decisions instead of faulty ones? Indeed, much of American culture is based upon the unequivocal belief in free will, as it suggests that a person can do and achieve anything he or she wants to do. Still, free will is still a concept subject to debate. According to Dan Dennett (2007), a person has the ability to make decisions using free will, but that free-will-endowed mind is subject to infection, to parasites, to memes -- infectious ideas. Once these ideas -- such as religion and the isms, like communism -- infect the brain a person has a limited version of free will, but must instead live every moment in conjunction with the infectious idea that has invaded his or her brain. On the other hand, a more traditional argument for the role of fate in one's life is controlled by his or her biology, that "my genes (or my neurotransmitters) made me do it" (pg. 300). This argument suggests that a person is wholly controlled by his or her physical chemistry, and that it is the synapses in the brain that create a person's actions.

Although both of these arguments suggest a free will that is, at best, limited, Dennett's (2007) view is a bit softer. Despite the fact that he argues that infectious memes often take over a person's mind, he forgets to mention the all-important fact that ideas, or the very memes he discusses, were once invented by humans. His theory suggests that the ideas themselves take on lives of their own. However, if they are, in their inception, human, doesn't the person who first created them, who first thought them up have the free will to do so? Thus, the arguments made by both Dennett (2007) and the textbook are sound ones, but the idea of free will still has a fighting chance up against these clearly logical theories. If one were to say that one was controlled by his or her biology, or something a bit more flexible such as the instinct we often ascribe to animals, than it is to forget the diversity that we, as a race, have achieved. Today, our world is populated by people who not only speak different languages and have created different cultures, but it is also filled with those who have different likes and dislikes, and who are differently talented. Although many of these variables are as a result of biology, such as one's ability to acquire the language around him or her or the fact that some people are simply born with certain talents, the argument that we are controlled by our biology becomes a but deflated when one views our diversity and considers how we all have relatively similar biological compositions, yet we are far from relatively similar people. The diversity displayed in the human race is not seen in other species, even in the primates that we often compare ourselves to. For this reason, it can be argued that people are not biologically predisposed to make certain choices, but they do so because they are different, and those differences drive them to choose in accordance with their likes, dislikes, and self-concept. Thus, free will is born.