Do we have Free Will?

Challenging Sapolsky with the evolution of morality

Above: Iguana, Galapagos 2022.

A bit of a deep dive today into philosophy and science, triggered by Determined, A Science of Life without Free Will, by Robert M. Sapolsky. As science uncovers more and more factual information, many of our fundamental assumptions come into doubt.

Sapolsky argues that we do not have free will. Our actions, and those of everyone, are predetermined by our environment, our genetic makeup, the randomness of the universe, and chaos theory. He bases his argument on scientific tests that show, indisputably, that our decisions are not made consciously, but are predetermined.

The ramifications of his theory are far-reaching. Our entire lives are based on the idea that we must behave in a certain way “or else.” We are taught that we have choices, and must make the right ones. But if Sapolsky’s theory is correct, then you may as well go back to bed, head to the gambling hall, shoot your enemy, or do whatever, since whatever you do has already been determined.

The first ground for rejecting his theory is that if adopted, our society would implode. Or perhaps explode. Yet his theory, if true, would say that such an implosion or explosion is predetermined.

My initial conclusion after reading the book was that even if his theories are true, we should ignore them, since the functioning of society requires that we believe that our actions are within our control.

It’s kind of like the Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Continue to act as if we have free will, because it is necessary as part of our conscious make up to believe we have free will, even if we don’t.

So we should continue to interface with the world as if we have free will, and as if others do as well, because the conception of the idea of free will itself is part of our make up and part of what makes us function as a society.

Therefore it doesn’t really matter whether we have free will or not, we should continue to act as if we do. If others commit a mass murder, however, we should forgive them for that since they really didn’t have free will, and they grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, had the wrong gene mutation, etc.

While I can live with this, it still left me feeling a bit hollow. Perhaps it’s just ego. I want to believe that what I have accomplished resulted from my efforts, not from dumb luck. I want to believe that the kid who grows up on the wrong side of the tracks can still make good.

I should note that Mr. Sapolsky does have an impressive resume. One thing not mentioned in his bio, although covered by him in his book, is his experience testifying as an expert witness on behalf of those accused of criminal acts. He typically would opine at trial that the accused “had no choice in the matter” because of the background, childhood, or mental abilities of the individual on trial, backed up by the latest science.

All of the evidence that he has carefully compiled could be used effectively by a defendant in his direct examination at trial on the points of “competency” and “intent.” Having dealt with many expert witnesses over my legal career, I can see how each chapter might represent a very nice Q and A before a jury.

The fact that his arguments may be compatible with defending a criminal shouldn’t eliminate the arguments as sound. I simply mention it because of the importance of the issue.

I decided to go to the Grand Vizier himself, Dr. Internet, to see what other critics might have to say about Mr. Sapolsky’s claims.

The best critique I found was a book review by John Martin Fischer, University of California, Riverside, published free on line at Notre Dame Philisophical Reviews.

John Martin Fischer is an American Philosopher, born December 26, 1952, currently a professor at the University of California, Riverside. He has an undergraduate degree from Stanford, PhD from Cornell, and taught at Yale for almost a decade. His work is centered on the idea of free will, moral responsibility, and determinism.

To understand any new area, you must first understand the language. So here are some quick definitions.

“Causal determinism” is “the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." Hoefer, Carl (2008). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 ed.) In other words, every event is caused by prior events and conditions, “together with the laws of nature.”

This is very much what Robert Sapolsky is arguing. But Sapolsky ignores moral responsibility. And we (or most of us) have evolved with moral responsibility just as we have evolved with male pattern baldness or brown eyes. Moral responsibility applies as a part of causal determinism.

Fischer coined the term “semicompatibilism,’ the idea that causal determinism is compatible with moral responsibility, while making no assertions about the truth of determinism or free will.

Fischer agrees that if Sapolsky is correct, free will, moral responsibility, and who we are as people are all at risk. He writes:

The cumulative effect of the discussions and Sapolsky’s analyses can be an overwhelming sense that we might be wrong about our very foundational beliefs in free will and moral responsibility, and even our selfhood.

Sapolsky argues:

You cannot decide all the sensory stimuli in your environment, your hormone levels this morning, whether something traumatic happened to you in the past, the socioeconomic status of your parents, your fetal environment, your genes, whether your ancestors were farmers or herders. … we are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment.”

Fischer fleshes out Sapolsky‘s argument a bit more, before attacking it:

The “nothing more than” claim is not just that we lack free will (and thus moral responsibility), but we are not even agents (in the sense of being active) at all. We do not make genuine decisions and engage in robust practical reasoning. Rather, things just happen to us. Indeed, we are nothing more than a bunch of cells (neurons), determined to bounce around as they do. Importantly, we do not actively change our moral behavior. It does indeed change, but not as a result of active choices on our part (265-299). As Sapolsky puts it, we are not the captains of our ships. (It seems that, on his view, we are not even cabin boys!) Fischer, supra.

Sapolsky presents us with this fundamental challenge: If everything I do, say and don’t do and don’t say are predetermined, then we aren’t even cabin boys on the voyage of life!

The ramifications of causal determinism on the criminal justice system are interesting. If a murderer commits the crime because he missed the Sunday School class that covered “Thou shalt not kill,” do we excuse the crime? Of course not. Society must have laws and must enforce those laws. But why?

Here is where it gets interesting. What if our morality is part of the system, not separate from it? Our morality systems have evolved over thousands of years, a relatively short period of time in the span of things. Morality is most easily traced by the various religions man has adopted through the ages, from animist beliefs shown in cave drawings through the Greek philosophers and up to the present. What if our moral system, whatever it may be for each of us, is also encoded into us as a “moral layer?”

Think of these moral systems as layers of influence superimposed over all the other genetic, environmental, and chaotic influences. Sometimes the moral layer succeeds in influencing the decision. Sometimes it does not.

The mass murderer’s moral layer may have never developed. Each society has its own unique morality layer. Some stronger than others. When a decision is made, it will either be influenced by the moral layer or it won’t be, depending on the various factors at play.

Whether or not a subsequent action is consistent with the morality layer that attempts to influence the action, the lesson from the action still adds to subsequent actions, either positively or negatively.

For example, after a school shooting, we look at the environment, genetics, and other factors that may have influenced or otherwise caused the shooting. We try, as a species, to adopt certain measures to avoid future shootings. We want to prevent these events from recurring. In the process other values, some more deeply embedded than others, come to the fore. Such as the right to bear arms. The basic instinct of human survival which is part of our makeup. The responsibility of parents for the actions of their children. The importance of a safe educational system.

All of these factors affect our response, and influence future actions.

While in the end Sapolsky may be technically correct about causal determinism, he fails to cast his net broadly enough. Actions are influenced by moral beliefs, consciously or unconsciously. Morality provides a layer of influence on actions. And the recognition and support of those moral beliefs is critical for the future of our species.

So in the end, Sapolsky just doesn’t go far enough for me. He fails to include thousands of years of evolution of ethics systems, and their influence on our actions. Just because our actions are predetermined by the past doesn’t mean that the past did not include Sunday School, or a study of Marcus Aurelius. Nor does it mean that thousands of years of morality isn’t encoded in our genes, modulating our actions.

The moral layer is a thin one, though, having evolved most recently, and it is easily ignored or overcome by the influence of other more ancient layers. It is our obligation to look closely at our ethics, to insure that we are strengthening and developing the moral layer.

By the way, of all the philosophies out there, Stoicism fits best with causal determinism and semicompatibilism.

If you made it this far, you have my sympathies~!

Above: Blue footed Booby, Galapagos 2022.

Oh, about that squirrel story yesterday? I realized later that the crows just like to harass hawks. Just because the hawk had staked out a spot next to a squirrel’s nest doesn’t mean the crows were protecting the squirrel. They just hate the hawks! It’s coded in their genes! The sign on their club house reads: “No Hawks Allowed!”

But you’re ALL welcome here, hawks and crows alike!

Thanks for traveling along~!