Timothy Birdnow

Timothy Birdnow

On Facebook Eric Chapman asked the question:

"Is free will a human right or are the rights designed to ensure your will is the freest it can be?"

I replied that it is the cornerstone of rights, that there can be no civil rights without free will.

Eamon Butler replied:

You are always free to do and say as you will. However there are also always consequences. You can't expect to do what you want but others can't react as they see fit. That is the control.

Eric responded to Eamon:

yes, you actually don't have free will at all in this aspect of consequences in that you CAN walk out into traffic or into the desert without food or water but not if you want to live. This control that you're mentioning is more of the social contract which stems into variants like "the Golden rule."

I replied:

Neurobiological research shows that when you are going to do something, say, move your leg, a nerve impulse first builds up (and you are not aware of it). It's called an Action Potential. The discovery of Action Potentials was used to justify the idea that there is no such thing as free will; it is an illusion. But it was later discovered that a second wave builds up and it apparently is a veto on the first, or can be. In other words, we are not just forced by our neurons to act, but can stop it.

This restores the concept of free will as we can decide whether we want to take any action or not.

Eamon Butler is right about consequences; we can choose to act against our own interests if we wish, but we can also choose NOT to act against them - or act for them, for that matter. Free will is not being free of consequences, but having the right to choose. I think you are spot on Eamon.

In fact, there are almost no actions that do not have consequences one way or another. Those may be small or great but they are there. Every single action effects the future.

This is in fact a common speculation in quantum physics. We call it the Many Worlds interpretation; it has been shown that an electron, when fired at a double slit, will actually go through both. Niels Bohrs promoted the Copenhagen Interpretation which argued this happened at all levels of reality, only it was noticeable at the quantum level. Thus every action has both happened and not happened, and this means the universe is endlessly dividing.

While we can debate this all day long, it is clear our actions set a chain of events in motion that certainly set the courses of our lives, and they stem from the smallest of actions sometimes. We are basically creating our lives based on our free will.

What so many people think is free will is not so much. They think it means having the right to do whatever you want and not pay a price. But we pay some sort of price - or gain a reward - from every action we take. That is free will. It can be supressed to a degree, by governments, by those who would manipulate people's thinking, but it can never be eradicated completely. We are autonomous moral agents and can decide our own fate. We may choose poorly, but we still choose. There is no way around that.

That's why I say all rights derive from free will; without it we are inanimate objects. Without the right to choose we can do...what? Not a lot. How do we have freedom of speech if we don't have a choice as to what to speak about? How do we have freedom of assembly if we don't choose to assemble? Free will is the cornerstone of rights. You have no rights where you have no power to choose.

That is why we say rights are "God given"; they are a part of our very existence, tied inextricably with our free will. Rocks don't have rights; they follow immutable physical laws.

Animals have a lesser degree of free will, and as such have a lesser moral and intellectual and spiritual existence. We understand the implications far more than an animal that only perhaps understands the basic goals such as finding food.

Freedom comes not from a lack of restrictions on what you can or cannot choose but in facilitating the right to choose - even poorly. Consequences are also at the core of free will.

As Montesquieu stated "There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice." Or as C.S. Lewis put it "

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies". That is because the moral busibodies and "justice warriors" would suppress choices in favor of their own moral code. They want there to be restricted free will so as to herd everyone along as sheep under their own watchful eye.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 872 words, total size 5 kb.