To what extent is free will an illusion?

The stimulus I chose is a scene extracted from the fourth episode of a 2023 Netflix British television series called "Bodies". The science fiction crime thriller TV show discusses how four detectives from four different time periods (1890, 1941, 2023, and 2053) have to solve the same exact crime: a murdered naked body missing one eye with a scrape on its forehead and a 井 tattoo on its arm, located in Longharvest Lane, London. Detective Maplewood, from the post-apocalyptic era in 2053, identifies the dead body through its DNA as a professor of quantum gravity who is still alive, Gabriel Defoe. Iris Maplewood is then informed by Commander Mannix, the country's head of state, that the same body discovered is Defoe's, however from two days in the future as Chapel Perilous, a "terrorist" organization trying to conspire Mannix's murder, has managed to create a time portal machine. Hence, she brings him to her apartment in order to keep him safe from his imminent murder. Subsequently, the two characters, Iris Maplewood and Gabriel Defoe, are found having a dialogue about free will over a glass of wine.

Free will and determinism discussions, such as the one depicted in the stimulus, have been debated by philosophers for centuries. Starting from early Greek mythology, Oedipus's prophecy depicts how one cannot avoid its destiny. According to the prophecy, Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother once he grows up. The King of Thebes, who was his biological father, then deserts him to prevent him from this fate. However, Oedipus is taken in by another king. As he discovers the terrible fate he is destined for, he leaves his family not knowing he was adopted in order to stop the prophecy. Nevertheless, during his journey, he kills a stranger who ends up being his dad and marries the deceased man's wife, therefore fulfilling the fate he was trying to avoid. Hence, he was ruled by the illusion of free will. One of the traditional views supporting this argument would be hard determinism, also known as incompatibilism, which holds that every human action and choice is the inevitable result of an interconnected set of causes. However, the opposite view which argues that the human being is a free agent capable of making its own choices is called libertarianism. It is thus evident from the stimulus that Iris Maplewood holds a libertarian point of view, while Gabriel Defoe expresses a hard determinism approach during the dialogue. Hence, this essay will demonstrate how free will is an illusion to a great extent.

Most libertarians hold that the human being is an agent morally responsible for creating a meaningful purpose in life. The name of this belief is called existentialism. French 20th-century philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre proclaims this post-modern philosophical movement to refer back to the whole idea of essentialism. While essentialism argues that the innate essence we are born with gives us a purpose, existentialism argues that our purpose comes after we are born, meaning "existence precedes essence" (Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism, 1946). Before the whole concept of essentialism, the idea that the essence was born within us was the dominating position up until the late 19th century when some philosophers started pondering if we are even designated with any essence, also known as nihilism, popularized by Ivan Turgenev. Nihilism emphasizes the rejection of all social and religious norms in the belief that one's existence has no meaning or essence. However, Sartre counters the meaninglessness of life as he strongly highlights the significant amount of freedom we possess. He argues that in order to be in full possession of our freedom we have to live authentically by creating our own moral responsibilities. He found this fate to be rather exhausting in which he interpreted this to suggest that "man is condemned to be free" (Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions, 1957). However, if we refuse to accept the entirety of our freedom, he would call this "bad faith" (Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1943). For instance, I get a bad grade on my exam due to my lack of study, yet I blame my low score on the teacher's strict way of correcting. This is an exact depiction of "bad faith" as I purposefully neglect the idea of my own free will and responsibility by putting the blame on something else to excuse my bad result on the exam. Hence, Sartre would agree with Maplewood as she claims: "I live in a world where I choose. I make things happen.", since she recognizes and encompasses the responsibility to choose her own destiny as a free agent without showing proof of bad faith as she highlights the engagement of her full personal agency. However, Sartre would additionally emphasize the moral responsibility that she has to deal with facing all of her choices, which she does not mention in her argument.

In order for Iris Maplewood to effectively support her perspective, she proceeds on by giving an example: "A man makes a woman dinner. She agrees to eat it. He pours her a glass. She agrees to drink it. One glass turns to several. And.. she realizes she really likes French wine. She opens number two, of her own free will". In this scenario, Jean-Paul Sartre would highlight the freedom of each individual, as both the man's choice to cook dinner and offer wine to the woman, as well as the woman's decision to accept the invitation and wine, demonstrate their personal agency in engaging with each other based on their desires and preferences. However, her given example is a perfect depiction of how she falls into the illusion of free will. I personally believe her defense to be inappropriate for numerous reasons. Although she highlights the woman's agency in making those choices, she does not consider the implications that persuade her into making those choices such as social, psychological, or even biological factors. Additionally, she tries to demonstrate how the sequence of events the woman effectuates is not the result of interconnected causes as she acts with her own free will. However, each event is the inevitable result of the previous one. For instance, her realization of liking French wine derives from the previous event where she consumes several glasses which refers back to her initial agreement of drinking it and so on. Hence, her argument is the mere product of what she is trying to free herself from, determinism.

The whole scope of determinism can be divided into two main ideas; nature and nurture. Nature makes reference to the theory that biological factors influence our actions and choices, also known as biological determinism. The 19th-century British naturalist, Charles Darwin, supports this belief. In his evolution theory, he encompasses how human characteristics are genetically inherited and, therefore, highlights how we are determined by nature. Thus, Darwin would agree with Gabriel Defoe's counter-argument to free will: "Your parents' relationship to alcohol. Genetically, the taste buds on your tongue, the specific makeup and responsiveness that makes this wine taste just sumptuous to you right now at this moment.", as he comprises the biological factors affecting our way of thinking. More specifically, in terms of the genetic influence on one's parents' relationship to alcohol, Darwin would agree that genetics play an immense role in determining a person's tendency for particular habits, or, in this case, tastes. Hence, he would argue that the transmission of genes from parents to children can result in the inheritance of traits linked to alcohol vulnerability. Furthermore, regarding the taste buds on one's tongue and their specific makeup, and responsiveness to certain flavors, Darwin would acknowledge those factors to be the result of natural selection. He would most likely argue that people with taste affiliations over nutrients essential to survival would have a selective advantage over individuals with different taste responsiveness, due to natural selection which ultimately leads populations to develop taste preferences beneficial for their longevity and ability to produce offspring. However, biological determinism is not a strong enough predictor used alone, it has to be paired with social determinism. For instance, according to Markku Linnoila's findings in 1989, low serotonin levels, which are biologically inherited, are likely to result in impulsive behavior. Yet, they must be combined with a social stimulus in order to be a real predictor. Let's take into account a young monkey with low serotonin levels who had to witness the death of its mother. Subsequently, the monkey's past trauma increases the chance that he acts upon this impulsive behavior due to its nature and lack of nurture. Nurture refers to the belief that one's own behavior is strongly influenced by their social and cultural environment, also known as social determinism. Social contract theorist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, holds that "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains", in which he utilizes the word "chains" to symbolize society (Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1976). Through this quote, Rousseau highlights how the human being loses part of its freedom once it becomes part of society. He would hence support Defoe's continuity of his previous argument: "The temperature of the room, the mood you're in when you drink it, the person you drink it with.", since he highlights how the external environment can influence one's views of the wine's appealing properties. Thus, Gabriel Defoe's argument is far more compelling than Iris Maplewood's as he pairs biological determinism with social determinism and employs scientific evidence to support his perspective.

Although I believe hard determinism seems as the most compelling argument, it does have its weaknesses which is what urges most people to reject the concept. Starting off with the major problem, we feel free. Why would we feel free if freedom does not exist at all? However, I would argue that the reason we feel free is due to the illusion of freedom. Moreover, there is not really any valid proof of human beings possessing free will except the feeling of freedom which is not enough to effectively support this belief. Additionally, it would cause drastic changes in our justice system as it calls into question how much moral responsibility can be set on individuals for their actions. Subsequently, if we accept that we do not have any free will, it can make individuals purposefully misbehave as they cannot be held accountable for their actions as humans may not actually have control over their behavior if every action is predetermined by previous causes, such as society, genetics, and environment. Furthermore, we tend to be more accepting and sympathetic towards people when we know that something is out of their control which would introduce a whole new level of subjectivity in the justice system. However, every philosophical concept has its implications and we cannot just reject a theory as a whole just because some of them do not align with our society.

Although there are still weaknesses to this position, I believe that the arguments on both sides evidently highlight that the illusion of free will endures to a significant degree, due to internal and external factors that we are completely unaware of surrounding human beings' existence. Jean-Paul Sartre objected to this position by highlighting the great amount of freedom each individual possesses, which prompts us to create a meaningful purpose for our lives. While Charles Darwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau depict how the combination of biological and social factors leaves no space for free will in the human being. Moreover, the broad scope of this philosophical position can be further highlighted by the implications of hard determinism on ideas such as moral responsibility and the justice system. However, I do not believe that those implications are sufficient to reject this theory as a whole, especially due to the philosophical validity that hard determinism depicts. Ultimately, the ongoing debate between both characters prompts individuals to reconsider their definitions of moral agency, freedom, and the extent to which external factors truly impact our choices.

Nezet, N. L., Williams, G., White, C., & Lee, D. (2014). Philosophy: Being human. Oxford University Press.

Tearle, Dr. Oliver. (n.d.). A summary and analysis of the Oedipus Myth. Interesting Literature. https://interestingliterature.com/2021/03/oedipus-myth-story-summary-analysis/#

Thinking Deeply with Ben. (2021, January 25). Existentialism vs Nihilism-Explanations and Key Differences of Each. Medium. https://thinkingdeeply.medium.com/existentialism-vs-nihilism-explanations-and-key-differences-of-each-a67e7ba32690

Guignon, C. B. (1998). Existentialism. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/existentialism/v-1/sections/criticisms-and-prospects

Riccardo, B. (2008, April 22). Genetic evidence that Darwin was right about criminality: Nature, not nurture. Medical hypotheses. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434037/

Khan Academy. (n.d.). Darwin, evolution, & natural selection (article). Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/natural-selection-ap/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024, February 13). nihilism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/nihilism