Government's Role in Society

On June 5, 1998, the Boston Globe published columnist and libertarian George Will's piece "Prosecuting 'Crimes' of the Mind?" in which he takes government to task for trying to influence character development and personal behavior.  What caught my attention in this otherwise typical anti-regulation rant were the following paragraphs on free will.  Will is describing Richard Dooling's novel, "Brain Storm," which raise issues of free speech, political correctness, and, interestingly, the implications of neuroscience for the prospects of control (Will's text is indented):

Politics

Worldview naturalism has progressive implications for politics and policy, some of which are explored in this section. It is no coincidence that scientists and others with a naturalistic worldview tend to be liberals. They see no good justification for supposing any class of individuals, such as females, gays, religious minorities, races or ethnicities, deserves unequal treatment. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to hold non-naturalist views about human nature that serve to reinforce inequalities based on such classifications.

How Determinists Cross the Street

It’s pretty much inevitable that you will walk across a street at some point. How you cross it is determined by a number of factors, including your desire to cross it safely. Although it’s not inevitable that you will cross the street with your eyes open, it’s a good bet, given your desire not to be injured or killed.

Determinism vs. Fatalism

Determinism holds that every thing and event is a natural and integral part of the interconnected universe. From the perspective of determinism, every event in nature is the result of (determined by) prior/coexisting events. Every event is a confluence of influences. While determinism regards humans as "one with" the unfolding matrix of the natural universe, supernaturalism and fatalism regard humans as existing outside of this system.

The Flaw of Fatalism

What is it that some people imagine they lose should their actions turn out to be a deterministic unfolding of conditions, not a "freely willed" choice? There is a sense that some sort of possibility is given up, that one’s power over the world is relinquished. Since things couldn’t have turned out otherwise, why make any effort to bring about a desired outcome? If we don’t have free will, why bother to act at all? This fatalistic response to not having free will is often suggested as a reason why we must have it, or at least must pretend to have it.

Free Will

"How might we be changed by dwelling intensely on the view that ultimate responsibility is impossible?"

- Galen Strawson, "Luck Swallows Everything," Times Literary Supplement, June 26, 1998

Pages

Subscribe to Naturalism.org RSS