Free will refers to the ability to select a course of action to fulfil a desire. Over the years there has been a divided opinion on whether free will exists or not. Researchers have failed to come up with a fully satisfying explanation to support the idea of free will. In the world today, the idea of free will is incoherent. From a scientific perspective, things cannot occur if nothing is contributing to it. The concept of free will cannot be explained. Some Psychologists as well as neuroscientists have researched this issue and proved that free will is just an illusion.
Free will has been allegedly been disapproved by neuroscience. According to neuroscientist Ben Libet, all the people that believe in free will also believe that the brain plays a role in coming up with decisions (Vaughn 244). This includes both the ambitions as well as the modest. According to him, the brain of a human being generates a decision unconsciously, and they become aware of them after the fact. There is a reason for people to get worried since making free decisions depends on making conscious decisions. This implies that it is not up to people to make decisions if all the decisions are made unconsciously (Libet 291).
In his study, Livet concluded that people have no free will as far as the initiation of movements of people is concerned. Although individuals have a cognitive veto to avoid movements at the last moment. From the perspective of a neurologist, Libet, as well as other researchers, attributed this effect to the brains’ anterior cingulate motor.
Being one of the neuroscientists against free will, Sam Harris believes that humans are better off without this notion. The illusion of free will is holding people back. Besides, people do not choose their genes as well as their parents. Although people do not choose the brains they want, the brains are the source of their intentions as well as actions. This implies that they should not be blamed for the crimes they commit.
According to Smilansky, there are two levels of assessing freedom for instance compatibilists as well as ultimate. The ultimate level of evaluation demonstrates the incoherence of free will. On the other hand, compatibilists suggest that God is the source as well as the sustainer of things. God determines everything that happens. Additionally, every activity of a creature depends on the cooperative activity of God (Smilansky 21).
Smilansky suggests that there is no free will especially in the traditional sense. Besides he argues that although the idea is an illusion, it must be defended by the society because it undermines blame as well as praise. For instance, when one is deliberating on doing something bad and realize that the society will not blame him for taking the selfish option, he will end up doing it.
The ruminations of philosophers have come up with considerations, for instance, cosmological determinism, indeterminism, as well as cosmological libertarianism. Cosmological determinism states that free will is impossible since everything proceeds over the course of time in a way that is predictable. Whereas indeterminism states that free will is impossible because the universe and the actions of people are random.
Psychologist Daniel Wegner, as well as his colleagues, suggest that most people claim control over events that others initiate. For instance, fans in a basketball match try to give good vibes to the players shooting critical free throws. According to Wegner free will is an event whose causes is hard to understand (Wegner 47).
Social psychology also challenges the people who believe in free will. Some researchers suggest that free choice is influenced by the behavior of people. According to these researchers what people do is dictated by the circumstances of the various situations they find themselves in. Again, what people do is not up to them.
Not everyone agrees with the conclusions of the research conducted by neurologists. According to skeptics, free will is far from debunked. For instance, W.R. Klemm did not agree with the interpretation of the data. Klemm suggests that the experiments were grossly oversimplified. Others argued that the timing of action and movement was short as a result creating distortions in the data. Also, the regions of the brain being studied for example SMA, as well as the brain’s anterior cingulate motor, may be responsible for the motor planning’ late stages. Other parts of the brain might be conceived to exert will. Other choice-predictive signals may have influenced the set-up of other experiments.
More work needs to be done, although the neuroscientists have provided essential insights into human thinking as well as decision making. Before neuroscientists predict that the actual outcome before an individual becomes aware, it is difficult to prove to critics. Additionally, there are different types of decision-making which neuroscientists need to delineate. According to critics, not all decisions are the same. For instance, moving a finger is different from speech preparation. This would represent a fruitful inquiry area given the limited nature of experiments to date.
People who have low confidence in the existence of free will experience an increased bad behavior. In a study conducted in 2008 by Kathleen Vohs as well as Jonathan Schooler asserts that there is an increased rate of cheating for the people who read passages in which scientists deny the existence of free will (Vohs and Jonathan 52). In his study, Roy Baumeister found out that when college students were presented with information denying the existence of free will, they tend to behave aggressively than a group which is controlled. For instance, the students who dislike spicy food are served with large amounts of spicy salsa. This is possible since as the confidence of an individual that he has free will diminishes, the impression that one is responsible weakens. Irresponsible people should not be blamed for their behaviors. On the other hand, when people believe that they cannot be blamed for being aggressive the urge to control the behavior reduces (Baumeister 15).
Much of the argument developed by Baumeister is based on the consequences of believing whether or not free will exists instead of if free will exists or not. The most important thing is if people think that they are making choices irrespective of if the behavior of people is uncaused.
Conclusion
Although the debate of whether free will exists or not is set to continue, what is important is that people should treat each other as humans that are self-determined and whose thoughts as well as feelings are essential. In most of the cases, many research still has some loopholes. Although free will is an illusion, its advocates need to improve on their methods of experimentation.
Works Cited
Baumeister, Roy F. "Free will in scientific psychology." Perspectives on psychological science 3.1 (2008): 14-19.
Libet, Benjamin. "The timing of mental events: Libet's experimental findings and their implications." (2002): 291-299.
Smilansky, Saul. Free will and illusion. OUP Oxford, 2000.
Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Vohs, Kathleen D., and Jonathan W. Schooler. "The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating." Psychological science 19.1 (2008): 49-54.
Wegner, D. M. "The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge: A Bradford Book." (2002).
