If free will is an illusion, can we truly be held accountable for our actions?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
not much to say >_<
Neuroscience
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Haggard’s studies show that what we experience as “intentions” to act are actually post-hoc reconstructions of unconscious neural activity.
Philosophy
- 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) ]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
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.