In this blog post, we explore whether our choices are truly free, focusing on philosophical questions about free will and materialistic views of humanity.
There are two different perspectives on human nature. According to the religious view of humanity, humans have a physical body and a non-physical soul. The soul is completely separate from the physical body and is the source of human decisions. The religious view of humanity is a long-standing belief based on religious scriptures and philosophical traditions, which emphasizes moral choices and responsibility. It believes that the soul exists after death and that human moral actions affect the state of the soul and its subsequent fate.
On the other hand, according to the materialistic view of humanity, humans are nothing more than physical bodies. There is no soul beyond the physical body. Therefore, human decisions are merely neurological events that occur in the brain. The materialistic view of humanity has gained prominence with the development of modern science, especially neuroscience and psychology. According to this view, all human actions and decisions can be explained as the result of physical and biological processes. Assuming the materialistic view of human nature, can humans make free choices? In other words, do humans have free will? For example, suppose that when Mr. A opens the refrigerator, he finds only strawberry milk and chocolate milk. Can Mr. A choose one of these two drinks of his own free will?
In relation to this question, the anti-free will argument concludes that Mr. A does not have free will. First, arbitrary choices are either predetermined by previous events or occur randomly. Here, random means that it is not predetermined. Based on this premise, the anti-free will argument considers both the predetermination assumption and the randomness assumption. First, let us assume that arbitrary choices are predetermined by previous events. In the anti-free will argument, this leads to the conclusion that we do not have free will. For example, if Mr. A’s choice of strawberry milk was predetermined even before he was born, it would be difficult to consider that he chose it of his own free will.
Second, let us assume that random choices occur randomly. In the anti-free will argument, we conclude that we do not have free will in this case as well. For example, if Mr. A’s choice of strawberry milk is merely a random neural event in his brain, it would be difficult to consider it a product of free will. This argument reinforces the materialistic view of humanity, which asserts that all human choices and actions are the result of physical processes.
However, there are various criticisms of this argument. According to one criticism of the anti-free will argument, while the conclusion is acceptable when considering the predetermination assumption of the anti-free will argument, it is not necessary to accept the conclusion when considering the randomness assumption. Therefore, it argues that the conclusion of the anti-free will argument does not need to be accepted. The reasons are as follows.
In order for an arbitrary choice to be a product of my free will, the following two conditions must be met. First, I must be the subject of that choice. Second, my choice must not be predetermined by previous events. However, if a choice is predetermined by previous events, this conflicts with the second condition for free will. Therefore, considering the predetermination assumption of the anti-free will argument, we must accept the conclusion that we do not have free will. Of course, there may be other meanings of free will that are different from this. If the phrase “I chose freely” simply means “I did what I wanted to do,” then regardless of whether my choice was predetermined by previous events, it can still be a product of my free will. However, this kind of free will is different from the free will that we are considering here, which must satisfy both of the above conditions.
Next, even if a choice is random, the subject of that choice can still be me. According to the materialistic view of human nature, “A chose strawberry milk” means that “a neural event occurred in A’s brain at the moment of choice.” Let us assume that this neural event in A was not predetermined by previous events. Even under this assumption, A can still be the subject of that choice. This is because this assumption does not change the fact that “A chose strawberry milk” as a neural event that occurred in the brain at the time of the choice. Ultimately, when considering the random assumption of the anti-free will argument, the conclusion is not necessary.
Furthermore, the question of free will has long been an important topic in philosophical discussions. Various philosophers have explored the relationship between human free will and determinism. Some philosophers have defended free will while trying to explain how it can be compatible with physical processes. For example, compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism and that even if human choices are determined by physical laws, those choices can still be free. On the other hand, incompatibilists argue that determinism and free will are incompatible, and that true free will is only possible when determinism is denied. These discussions play an important role in deepening our understanding of free will and human nature.
This philosophical debate is also related to human moral responsibility. If humans have true free will, then they can be held morally responsible for their actions. However, from a deterministic point of view, all human actions are determined by previous events, so it may be difficult to hold humans morally responsible. In this sense, the debate over free will goes beyond mere philosophical curiosity and is deeply connected to social and ethical issues.
In conclusion, the two views of human nature, namely the religious view and the materialistic view, have different philosophical premises, which lead to different understandings of free will. The religious view emphasizes the human soul and moral responsibility, while the materialistic view explains all human actions as physical processes. The argument against free will supports the materialistic view of human nature and attempts to deny human free will, but various criticisms and philosophical discussions on this issue continue to make important contributions to the exploration of the existence and meaning of free will.
