Free Will vs. Determinism: Justice or Mercy?
Chairman Gordon Haist convened the meeting and deferred to the session moderator, Paul Weismantel, who in turn introduced the speaker, Peter McAllister, PhD economist, former CitiGroup executive, and high school teacher. Peter framed the question for the session: Can we determine our own actions or are we at the mercy of powerful forces beyond our control? Many scientists maintain that free will is a myth, he pointed out. If so, how do we justify our criminal justice system?
Peter described two scenarios in which a man robbed a store and assaulted the clerk when the alarm sounded:
1. In the first, the criminal faced a judge in the courtroom who said the defendant was responsible for the decision he made, punishment affirms moral order, accountability requires accountability and the sentence should be 12 years in prison.
2. In the second, a neuroscientist testified that the defendant grew up in violent poverty, suffered childhood traumas and lacked impulse control. Without blame or condemnation, the judge sentenced him to a state rehabilitation facility, subject to periodic risk assessment.
In the first scenario, the defendant’s punishment and suffering as a result of his sentence are seen as justified because of the choice he made.
In the second, the defendant is treated as if he had no free will and is expected to change his behavior as rehabilitation efforts kick in.
Both systems are capable of protecting society and both can reform behavior. So which is ethical? Peter listed four possible answers (see his PowerPoint):
Strict determinism: Under the doctrine of strict determinism (no free will), there is the assumption that reality and unconscious neural activity, determined by physics and chemistry, direct behavior. Albert Einstein, for example, said, “In a universe where all states exist and are predetermined, it is hard to argue for a concept of free will.“
Indeterminism: The conflicting doctrine proclaims that observation actually creates reality. Machines are now observing more than humans can. That being the case, reality is evolving and humans are challenged to think through their beliefs when decisions are required. Among the proponents of that point of view are Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt.
Gradations of both doctrines exist:
Soft determinism: Behavior is determined, but belief in free will can make a difference. People can be induced to behave better. Psychologist Kathleen Vohs argues that people believing in the dominance of free will, believing they are in control of their own lives, are more likely to behave morally than those who believe their behavior is out of their control. Belief that free will is an illusion leads to less creativity, more conformity and an inability to learn from mistakes, she says.
Free will: The will is free and volition determines its own effects. Determinism treats causality as material but the will is a conscious cause of effects through volition.
Under questioning, most of the audience was unified in their support of free will. So was Peter, who affirmed an Aristotelian view of free will. He argued that free will require the mind to be focused and unmotivated (not driven) in its choice of focus and that it operates both in our minds and in the material world. Determinism wrongly equates causation with mechanism, he held, meaning that its view of causation is too limited. It interprets causes from their effects and fails to understand the causal efficacy of volitional consciousness.
Parenthetically, this meant that in this discussion justice won out over mercy. In terms of the two scenarios Peter introduced, the criminal would have gotten 12 years in prison in place of rehabilitation.