Thoughts On Free Will and "Gattaca"

A couple of months ago I read James Rachels' "Problems from Philosophy," an introductory philosophy text for college students. Rachels' discussion of free will--which covers two chapters-- was one of the subjects that interested me the most. This is probably because it ties directly into sociology, a subject I am greatly interested in. The debate over free will is very important because it has implications for western thought. Individualism is a core belief of the western ideology; all western institutions emphasize it. Democracy emphasizes individual rights. Judeo-Christian religion emphasizes the individuals relationship with God. Western legal systems hold individuals responsible for their actions. Traditional marriage is seen as being between two individuals, a man and woman, etc. If it turns out we don't have any free will or we don't have as much as we thought then a core assumption will have to be reevaluated, and a reevaluation might affect all our institutions. This debate might be the most important philosophical debate of 21st century.

Rachels' book suggests the more cognitive studies that are done the more it is suggested we might not have as much free will as we would like to think or any at all. He cites numerous studies for this view, but the most famous was an experiment conducted by Jose Delgado. In Delgado's study he showed you could make humans do certain things, such as lifting an arm or looking over a shoulder, by stimulating certain parts of the brain with an electrode ray. People just found reasons why they did what they did after the action. This suggests that certain processes in the brain at least influence us to act in certain ways. Also, we know social forces shape people, and this is were sociology comes into this debate. It only takes a little reflection to realize had you been born in another culture or had been born during a different era in history you would be a different person. This is because social forces play a major role in shaping us as people. For example, if you're a sports fan in England it is likely you would be interested in soccer because this is the sport that most people value in England. But if you are a sports fan in the United States it is likely you would be disinterested in the sport because most Americans don't value soccer; there's a bias against it in the U. S. You would probably follow baseball, football and basketball. We also know a person's personality is a determining factor in what they are going to do. If someone goes to the movies and is a horror fan would it be surprising if he or she chose to see a horror movie? Or if somebody likes music would it surprise you he or she worked at a CD store?

These arguments may be hard for most westerners to grasp because we are accustomed to thinking that individualism is true, and individualism assumes free will. Western ideology states there are certain natural rights everybody has, and one of these core rights is freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms. But the possibility of no free will seems to turn this upside down. A better way of understanding what I am saying is the movie "Gattaca." The movie is set in a future where humans have mastered the ability to manipulate genes. Before birth most humans are given genes that will give them certain talents, and from birth these humans are groomed for certain occupations. The "Gattaca" universe assumes everyone has a limited amount of free will, and it illustrates how our institutions might be affected if we concluded we don't has much free will as we previously thought or none at all.

But one thing I have noticed about Rachels' discussion of free will is the term is mostly left undefined, and this may be a problem for most people who engage in this debate. Out of all the theories Rachels discusses only Compabatilism attempts to define free will, and it defines it as an uncoerced choice. All the other theories leave it vague, or at least in Rachels book it is. Since free will doesn't have a clear definition when people engage in this debate they may be shouting past each other. There is much more that can be said about this debate, and my blog entry is by no means the final word.