Pop Philosophy(2)

In my last entry, if you'll recall, (0r go look it up in the archive) I talked about the mind-body problem. Specifically, I said that I needed statement 1-3, (the physical body, the "kevin-ness" and mind-body interaction) but I never really said why. Well, this will hopefully make my reasoning a little more clear.

Free Will vs. Determinism

There are two types of freedom: circumstantial freedom, and metaphysical freedom. Circumstantial freedom is the physical ability to act, based on the circumstances of the agent. For example, if a person was to be tied to a chair, this would be a restriction of his circumstantial freedom. All philosophers can agree to this point.

Metaphysical freedom, on the other hand, is much more controversial. Metaphysical freedom, which I will define as free will, is a true choice between options in which the agent has the possibility to do or not to do something. Philosophers disagree whether or not metaphysical freedom exists.

The problem lies in that, for most of us, we want to believe in two contradictory things.

1) The Law of Cause and Effect

2) The Existence Free Will

The law of cause and effect basically means that for every effect, there was something to cause it. Or more simply, something cannot come from nothing. Almost all science is based on this premise. For example: If I hold a ball over my head and let it drop, we observe that the ball falls toward the ground. Why? Gravity exerted a force on the ball, CAUSING the EFFECT of the ball moving towards the ground at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

Seems obvious, right? Well, it gets trickier. Suppose we look at the effect of me releasing the ball in the first place, was there a cause? According to science, the cause was my brain sending electrical signals to my fingers, releasing my hand's grip on the fall, allowing it to drop. But how far back can you go? What caused the electircal signals to be sent by my brain? If the brain is a physical thing, (the negation of statment 2 from my first entry) cause and effect could hold. Theoretically, we could keep going further and further back, finding causes for all the thoughts and actions that I have ever done. This would take millions of years to prove, but in principle, it could be done.

But if every single thought and action I have was caused by something other than myself, how can I have free will? The answer is that I cannot. Everything has already been determined by the law of cause and effect.

However, I believe in free will. In my opinion, the decision to drop the ball was not caused by external factors, but rather by the non-physical "Kevin-ness." In the instances in which my circumstantial freedom is not limited, I believe I have also have metaphysical freedom to choose my own path. My free will breaks the cause and effect chain.

I admit that I cannot prove that free will exists, but allow me to explain why I believe in it anyway. It basically boils down to moral responsibility. If every action is determined according to the law of cause and effect, than nobody is resposible for their own actions. It would be wrong to punish, for example, a thief for stealing a T.V. set if the thief had no choice in the matter. On the other side of the coin, it would be wrong to praise, for example, somebody stopping the thief and arresting him, since the policeman had no say in his own actions either. In the world of cause and effect, there is no morality, no accountability.

And I can't live in that world.