Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#5949
If free will is an illusion, can we truly be held accountable for our actions?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
5
1389
rating
418
debates
44.74%
won
Description
not much to say >_<
Round 1
Pro
#1
greetings! n uh thx for joining me, Mall.
Well let's get this started.
Neuroscience
SAM HARRIS
“If I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people.”
“Understanding the neurophysiology of the brain, therefore, would seem to be as exculpatory as finding a tumor in it.”
It shows that all our actions are dictated by prior causes, leaving no room for independent choice. To put it simply, he means that if ppl share the same brain, they gonna do the same stuff. Hence, nothing known as free will would exist.
Benjamin Libet’s Experiments (1980s)
- Libet’s research showed that our brain makes decisions before we are consciously aware of them. His studies demonstrated that neural activity predicting a movement starts hundreds of milliseconds before the subject reports deciding to act. This suggests that what we experience as a conscious decision is actually our brain executing a predetermined action, and our awareness of "choosing" is just a delayed observation of what was already set in motion.
John-Dylan Haynes’ fMRI Studies (2008)
- Using brain scans, Haynes showed that decisions can be predicted up to 10 seconds before a person consciously makes them. This suggests that subconscious neural processes determine actions before conscious awareness kicks in.
Michael Gazzaniga’s Split-Brain Research
- Gazzaniga studied split-brain patients and found that the left hemisphere creates narratives to explain actions after the fact, even when those actions were initiated unconsciously. This suggests that free will is just an illusion of conscious rationalization.
Patrick Haggard’s Research on Volition
- Haggard’s studies show that what we experience as “intentions” to act are actually post-hoc reconstructions of unconscious neural activity.
Philosophy
1. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
“Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”
- Schopenhauer suggests that while we may act according to our desires, we have no control over what those desires are in the first place. [The World as Will and Representation (1819) ]
2. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677)
“Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but they are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire.”
- Spinoza argues that our sense of free will comes from ignorance of the deeper forces shaping our decisions. [Ethics (1677), Part III, Proposition 2, Scholium]
3. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, a sort of logical rape and falsehood.”
- Nietzsche criticizes the idea of free will by pointing out that if we were truly self-caused (causa sui), we would have had to create ourselves, which is impossible. [Beyond Good and Evil (1886), §15]
4. Paul Holbach (1723–1789)
“The actions of man are never free; they are always the necessary consequence of his temperament, of the received ideas, and of the notions, either true or false, which he has formed to himself of happiness.”
- Holbach argues that all human actions are determined by internal and external influences. [System of Nature (1770), Part I, Chapter XI]
Derk Pereboom’s “Four-Case Argument
Philosopher Derk Pereboom gives a solid argument proving that free will is an illusion, no matter how you look at it. His thought experiment goes like this:
- Case 1: Manipulated Agent – Imagine a person whose every thought and action are controlled by neuroscientists using a device. Clearly, he has no free will.
- Case 2: Brainwashed Agent – Now, imagine the person isn’t directly controlled but was brainwashed from birth to act a certain way. He still has no free will.
- Case 3: Genetic & Environmental Influence – What if instead of brainwashing, his genetics and upbringing determined his actions? He still didn’t choose freely.
- Case 4: Our Reality – This is exactly how real life works. Our genetics, upbringing, and brain processes dictate our actions. If free will doesn’t exist in the first three cases, it doesn’t exist at all.
Conclusion: If we reject free will in extreme cases, we have to reject it in reality too. The only difference is that we don’t notice the "control" because it’s built into our biology and environment.
Regarding the controversial nature of this issue, dudes have been putting up their tho'ts n well, turns out that actions aren't under this thing of will.
That’s my case for why free will is an illusion. What’s your take on it?
^_^
Con
#2
Greetings.
The first point I'll say is that freewill or freedom of autonomous choice has been established sufficiently in order for the justice system to be operated daily.
The law and penalty is executed on the basis of individual subjective choice in which those who commit to it are prosecuted in criminality processed through trial and judgment.
Now when an individual is not held accountable, it is because it is determined that the decision made by the individual was not at liberty or free to be able to reason rationally, sensibly of a sound mind.
As a matter of fact, the opposing side is using the freewill to be able to argue and freely decide to counteract, counterargue from this point.
Now , are there things, other moving parts outside of our manipulation that can't be controlled by us that we know about? Yes .
In addition, there could be that which is beyond this realm of things, you see. What could be that is unknown that has control.
Doesn't necessarily mean freewill doesn't exist to not be held to blame/blameless, responsible or accountable.
With everything being interconnected, interwoven, everything works in tandem in a network.
But being that we're going with the context that freewill doesn't exist because it is an illusion, society does or will do evaluations on individuals that appear or have the illusion of freewill.
In other words , folks that believe they were in control of what they committed unaware of a mental condition or due to naivety or ignorance, are acquitted of the punishable ramifications applied to other folks.
Other people that have been established to have control.
So via psychological profile, sociological profile, behavior tendencies, mental health, societal influences, genetics, we deem who is capable of their actions in tandem with prevention, making sensible judgement and whom doesn't contain the wherewithal or cognitive capacity.
Being that the lines are drawn between the two, so are the lines to accountability.
I yield here.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The equity framework running on freedom of thought doesn't mean freedom of thought exists — it simply shows that society needs the idea to consider individuals responsible. The law partitions individuals in light of their capacity to settle on sane decisions, yet this is about functional obligation, not evidence of genuine freedom of thought.
The con expresses contending against freedom of thought demonstrates we're utilizing it. Yet, nah — that is exactly the way in which the cerebrum works. Gazzaniga's exploration shows our cerebrum goes with choices first, then makes up reasons later. Discussing isn't confirmation of choice — it's simply the mind doing its thing, molded by previous encounters and science.
Presently, how about we hit Pereboom's four-case contention — still undefeated. If control, conditioning, or hereditary qualities kill unrestrained choice, how is "reality" any unique when it's additionally determined by hereditary qualities, childhood, and climate? The main contrast is that we don't see the control — it's worked in from birth.
Ultimately, saying "obscure powers" had some control over us is simply mystery. Without confirmation, it's a vacant roll of the dice. Until science says something else, neuroscience and theory remain steadfast — freedom of thought? All out deception.
Round 3
Pro
#5
The concept of free will as an illusion directly challenges traditional notions of personal accountability. If our actions are driven by forces beyond our conscious control—such as genetics, environmental influences, or unconscious neural processes—then the question arises: can we truly be held accountable for them?
Scientific References:
- Benjamin Libet’s Experiment (1980s):Libet’s research demonstrated that the brain begins to initiate movement before we are consciously aware of our intention to act. This suggests that our decisions are made unconsciously, and our conscious mind becomes aware of them only after they have already been set in motion.
- John-Dylan Haynes’ fMRI Studies (2008):Haynes used brain scans to predict a subject’s decision up to 10 seconds before they consciously made it, further supporting the idea that decisions are made by unconscious brain processes before we are aware of them.
- Michael Gazzaniga’s Split-Brain Research:Gazzaniga’s research on patients with split-brain (where the hemispheres of the brain are disconnected) showed that their left hemisphere often created justifications for actions initiated unconsciously by the right hemisphere. This suggests that our sense of conscious control may be a narrative constructed post facto.
- Patrick Haggard’s Research on Volition:Haggard’s findings indicate that what we perceive as our intentions to act are often simply rationalizations of unconscious neural activity. Our brains initiate actions before we become consciously aware of them, undermining the concept of free will.
Philosophical References:
- Derk Pereboom’s Four-Case Argument:Pereboom argues that if free will doesn’t exist in extreme cases—such as in instances of brainwashing, manipulation, or genetic/environmental determinism—then it cannot exist in any scenario. Since many of our actions are influenced by factors beyond our control, the concept of responsibility becomes questionable.
- Arthur Schopenhauer:Schopenhauer’s assertion, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills,” suggests that while we can act on our desires, we have no control over the desires themselves. This challenges the notion of free will by pointing out that our actions are ultimately determined by forces outside of our control.
- Baruch Spinoza:Spinoza argued that although we are aware of our desires, we remain ignorant of the underlying causes shaping those desires. This implies that our sense of free will is an illusion, as we are often unaware of the deeper forces guiding our actions.
- Friedrich Nietzsche:Nietzsche’s critique of the concept of being "self-caused" (causa sui) suggests that if we were truly free, we would have created ourselves. Since this is logically impossible, the idea of free will is fundamentally flawed.
Accountability in the Context of Free Will as an Illusion
If free will is an illusion, then how can we be held accountable for our actions? The traditional approach to accountability assumes that individuals have the freedom to make their own choices. However, this idea of free will is increasingly being challenged by scientific and philosophical findings. The concept of accountability can still exist, but it must be reframed.
- The Law: Legal systems are designed around the assumption that individuals can make rational decisions and are responsible for their actions. However, the law does not necessarily assert that free will exists; it simply operates on the premise that people should be held responsible for their actions to maintain social order.
- Psychological, Sociological, and Biological Influences: The law often considers external factors that may impair one’s ability to make rational decisions, such as mental health conditions, social conditioning, or genetic predispositions. These factors may influence the degree to which a person is held accountable, sometimes leading to reduced culpability.
Conclusion:
The notion that free will is an illusion does not negate the concept of accountability, but it complicates it. While we may not have complete control over our actions, we are still held accountable based on our capacity to make decisions within the constraints of our biology, psychology, and environment. Accountability, in this context, is about evaluating the capacity and intent behind actions, rather than assuming the existence of autonomous free will. By taking into account these influencing factors, we can maintain a framework of responsibility that aligns with a more complex understanding of human behavior.
Con
#6
"The notion that free will is an illusion does not negate the concept of accountability, but it complicates it. While we may not have complete control over our actions, we are still held accountable based on our capacity to make decisions within the constraints of our biology, psychology, and environment."
Of course we can still conceptualize accountability because as you say,"we may not have complete control".
So that is leaving us to may have partial control. But is freewill perhaps partially an illusion?
Not consistent there .
It either is an illusion or isn't but is according to the premise so the " control " we have is pseudo control.
You're backpedaling trying to compromise with the reality we have even believing that freewill is an illusion, we still deem and judge those that actually demonstrate zero control over their actions , that is the most realistically true representative of what no freewill would be and we do not hold those individuals accountable.
So in order for you to prove that we all have to be accountable, you have to start with the argumentation of those individuals which we can't explore at this juncture due to the number of rounds.
In the future, you may wish to consider extending the rounds to flush out the discord.
"Accountability, in this context, is about evaluating the capacity and intent behind actions, rather than assuming the existence of autonomous free will. By taking into account these influencing factors, we can maintain a framework of responsibility that aligns with a more complex understanding of human behavior."
Hence what was not flushed out and explored.
Hence it remains unresolved from the opposing side why all individuals should be held accountable for their actions being in a state of no control over those actions, inability to make judgment and respond appropriately to those actions to be suitable for certain punishable consequences.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
If wishes were fishes, then I would own an ocean. Here is exemplified the fallacy of if/then logic. In order to justify the ‘then’ statement, ‘if’ must be currently true. Fact is, ‘if’ is virtually always currently false in such “logic;” therefore, ‘then’ is not ever justified until ‘if’ is changed. Something else must justify wishes coming true. Therefore, either free will is not an illusion, or there is more to being held accountable for our actions than just free will, because the possibility exists that we are unjustly held accountable for our actions because human justice is not 100% accurate, which is a feature of Con’s rebuttal of the resolution (R3)
Argument
Pro’s neuroscience, philosophy, and Paraboom’s Four Case arguments are well documented, but leave entirely open to be rebutted by Con by the R1 rebuttal, continued in R3, that other factors exist to demonstrate that free will, itself, may not be sufficient to overcome external forces that could, if present, remove personal accountability for actions, such as the argument, “other moving parts outside our manipulation” to which greater accountability can be assigned. Pro never recovers from this rebuttal. An observation, Con wasted R2 posing a question rather than pressing his R1 argument of shifted accountability, negating the Resolution. Points to Con, with a caution.
Sources
Pro clearly offered sources for arguments, but they supported a failed Resolution, however, Con used Pro as his source, rebutting Pro. Lacking sources elsewhere for scholastic backing of arguments Con lost these source points rather than Pro legitimately earning them. Points to Pro
thx for putting in ur time n vote...........٩(◕‿◕｡)۶
Now that I’ve voted, I thought I’d expand with an explanation of the “caution.” You wasted R2 with a question of clarification that ought to have been in comments. Don’t waste a round like that. You could have pressed your R1 argument of other prevailing agents that relieve personal accountability for actions as you argued in R1 and R3, and found a source or two to underpin the argument. Good work, though. Well done.
well i actually don't really agree that it's an illusion, thou I just put up the debate to see how good can I do in an opposing topic
I am really not responsible for any of my actions. Just a program doing what universe programmed me for.