It seems rather puzzling that people of science can also embrace philosophies (e.g. the religions of the “Big Book”) which endorse the concept of free will. Having the benefit of a thorough training in scientific method, my irrational superstitions (at least at an intellectual level) no longer include a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god figure that has bestowed free will upon we humans.
In essence Determinism states that we live in a world governed by natural laws and through observation we can discover what these laws are. This is the philosophical underpinning of modern science. So, if you conduct scientific research or your practice relies upon its results, regardless of discipline, this concept is essential to your work. There may be variables at work beyond human comprehension (e.g. psychology of human behavior) making discovery of many of these natural laws difficult at best. Yet, if you accept research findings, whether in the physics lab or your doctor’s office (yes we humans are part of this world and therefore subject to these laws), you also (perhaps inadvertently) accept the concept of Determinism. So, here’s the punch line; if the human animal is governed by natural laws then behavior and cognition are predictable (if only for enough knowledge of these laws: the purpose of psychology or medical research) and free will does not exist. Seems a pretty cold assessment of the human condition eh? Maybe not.
If free will operates then we choose to be good or bad. This leads to blame, punishment, and vindictiveness directed at those making the wrong choices. On the other hand a philosophy of Determinism leads to an understanding that we creatures are only responding to the natural laws working within us and our environment. No need for blame, punishment, or vindictiveness. Certainly practical concerns are legitimate, such as separating violent offenders from society at large (prison), but the concept of punishment as “just” in and of itself becomes moot.
That the death penalty serves justice is really an argument used to rationalize vengeance. In light of extant research the deterrent argument seems to be a red herring, leaving only revenge. A Determinist belief system would say to revenge: Balderdash!, blaming the adult offender for behavior is tantamount to blaming the newborn for crying. (Exchanging life for death sentences would also save taxpayers millions of dollars.)
So it becomes evident that Determinism can be a far more humane belief system than those embracing the concept of free will. Still there is the practical matter of needing to “believe” that we choose our destinies. Here I would recommend the pragmatic approach of the father of American psychology William James. The truth of a belief can be measured by the benefits of believing ( in e.g. personal free will or perhaps the psychological benefits of religious belief). So, believing in the moment that I have free will may serve me well, whilst in my overarching world view I must embrace a Deterministic philosophy. As to those who would still argue for the death penalty: I willingly forgive you because you have no choice in the matter.
So how does all this relate to the workplace? Please consider this as a primer on Determinist worldview. In future installments I will relate some of its practical applications in the workplace.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Tim,
Nice that you’ve picked up on the humanitarian implications of challenging free will and I look forward to future installments. The Center for Naturalism is also challenging free will and exploring the implications, so you might find our work of interest. A recent paper on determinism is at http://www.naturalism.org/determinism.htm
many thanks,
Tom Clark, Director
Center for Naturalism
http://www.naturalism.org
Hey Tom,
While reading the paper you directed me to, I could not help but feel that I was a member of the determinist choir being preached to. I think framing this issue under the term “naturalism” works on a number of levels. And, it seems only “natural” that those persistently seeking truth would eventually come to similar conclusions. Of course, I am biased by my own journey.
Thank-You for Your Support,
Tim Asay
Don’t we need bad people in society to determine what is good and bad? Just like we need poor people to have rich people, otherwise we would not be able to differentiate between one another. I do not believe in the death penalty as it is now, but don’t you think that certain offenders should have done to them what they did to others. For example, sex offenders, they should not just be stuck in a prison somewhere to watch cable tv, get a free education, and free healthcare, thier life should be much more difficult then this.
Do we “need” devastating hurricanes to know what good weather is? Do we need the bubonic plague or polio to know what good health is? Further, are people “bad” or is their behavior “bad?” If you believe that no child is born with the “will” to do horribly bad things, then why would you believe that that child grows to do bad things of its own “will.” In fact genetic factors that were evolutionarily determined before a future rapist was even conceived may well be one of many natural laws operating with the end result of one who commits rape. This could well be a behavioral trait which natural selection favored, simply because it led to a passing-on of these genes which may contribute to the likelihood of developing this behavior.
And, we haven’t even discussed the environmental influences on sexual deviance such as having received similar abuse as a child (research demonstrates the correllation between those abused as children growing to become abusers themselves). So, be prudent, lock these people away from society. But, I see no point in punishing them for behaviors which are pre-determined by natural laws interacting with circumstances.
As to your first question, though variabilty in our world may be inevitable and a key ingredient of empiricism, I do not believe that the kinds you speak of are “necessary” to aid us in describing or understanding the world. Far better were we to understand enough of the cause to be able to reduce or perhaps eliminate the more abhorrent of these behaviors. Finally, based on everything I have said, I believe vengeance (an eye for an eye) as a policy is wrong. And, if you are still a “free-willer” and insist on your pound of flesh, please consider that being imprisoned is not quite the paradise you describe. I think if it was, more people would be trying to get in.