I would argue free will doesn’t exist for a couple reasons.
First of all, if free will exists, why are most criminals men? If human behavior is independent of physiology and environment, you’d expect criminality to be distributed evenly between the sexes. Unless you want to make a sexist argument that only men or only women have free agency.
Secondly, physiology and the environment explain human choice perfectly well. It goes against Occam’s Razor to add a mystical, tertiary “x factor” to explain human behavior.
Recently some scientific evidence has shown that you can judge a person to a large extent by their facial features. For example, people with wider faces have more testosterone and have been shown to be more likely to be violent, dishonest, self-centered and even psychopathic.
This is a very strange argument. Why not argue that if we didn’t have free will, if we behaved more mechanically, then just as many women as men would obviously be criminals so obviously we do have free will. I don’t know that that argument is any better than yours, but I don’t think it’s any worse, either.
If free will exists, then why do so many more men choose to do evil things? Is it simply a coincidence? Or is it because the male physiology is more likely to produce fallible people?
So long as we’re just spitballing, could it be that male physiology is more likely to produce success? “Hey, I could slam that person up against the wall and take their stuff, because I’m so big and strong. Funny story: that wouldn’t even occur to me if I were small and slight! But here I am, a brawny guy with fun options!”
“Free will” as I understand and use the term is the alternative to determinism. If you have free will, your choices can be influenced by “physiology and environment,” just not totally determined by them.
Free will has been debated extensively here on the SDMB and elsewhere. My own position, which I’ve stated before, is that it’s apparent to me that I either have free will or have the illusion of free will, and I don’t know any way of distinguishing between those.
So I will continue to think of myself as having free will. After all, if I’m wrong about that, I have no choice but to think so.
You seem to be trying to make a case that because SOME limits to possible behavior exist, due to biology, that EVERYTHING is decided for us by such factors. Is that right?
Or are you suggesting that if there isn’t 100% “free will,” that there may as well be none?
Anyway, if you are going to argue that the lack of total freedom of choice makes us slaves of some kind (which is bollocks), then the fact that we can’t ignore gravity would have been enough “proof.”
Freedom is relative. So? Your argument wont keep you out of prison if you try to explain theft or some other crime with your “lack of free will,” I guarantee it.
Absolutely! I believe in free will, but I also firmly believe that it is limited. Some decisions are just plain hard to make. Dieting is very traditionally difficult.
We are susceptible to temptations, doubts, self-deceit, and many other failings, never rising to anything close to “absolute will.”
This (by itself) doesn’t mean that free will doesn’t exist. It just means that it’s part of our “meat package.” Our brains have specific physical parameters. There are things you can’t really think about, in much the same way as the blind spot on the retina means there are things you can’t see.
You’re saying body shape means no free will? As in we don’t get to choose what we look like and have to depend on inherited chromosomes? We can’t choose because we’re not born yet. Free will comes after birth.
I don’t think compatibilists deny you are only as free as your biology and physics allows. If you’re shackled to a wall you’re less free than the prisoner in the yard, who is less free than Superman. This damages traditional, uplifting notions of free will, but oh well, it wasn’t exactly a coherent idea in the first place.
Did Jeffrey Dahmer choose to be a serial killer? Or was there a physical defect in his brain that made it impossible for him to really choose not to be a murderer?
Did I choose not to be a serial killer? Or does my non-defective brain mean that was never really an option for me?
And what does that tell us about the morality of me and Dahmer?
If I gave you a bag with an infinite number of identical marbles inside, would you be able to take them out and organize them into an order (marble 1, marble 2, etc)?
If yes, that suggests that you have the ability to make choices (mathematically speaking) and would hint at something like free will.
If not, you may be a zombie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk