Prof. Kellenberger
Phil 310
Free Will When grumpy old Scrooge of the famous movie A Christmas Carol went home on Christmas eve, he had no idea what awaited him. He experienced a night of anguish and terror after three ghosts visit him. Scrooge was a grumpy mean-spirited man after the death of his sister Fan. Just to prepare him for his “life” in death, his dead partner and friend Marley, who facilitates the entire nightmare, shows him the lost lonely spirits who were mean-spirited in their earthly lives. The first ghost who visited him that night was “the ghost of Christmas past”. This ghost serves to remind him how others had been kind to him during past Christmases in his youth and how people in his past embodied the Christmas spirit. This ghost served to instill guilt and remorse. Next, “the ghost of Christmas present” appears to Scrooge and shows him how everyone is enjoying Christmas and spreading the Christmas spirit around town. It also shows how his servant Bob, despite his meager earnings enjoys Christmas with his family. It also shows Scrooge his nephew Fred enjoying Christmas with his family. The two families only show downcast moods when discussing Scrooge. However, Fred maintains hope that his uncle Scrooge can change. After that, the most dreary “ghost of Christmas yet to come” appears to Scrooge. He shows Scrooge how Bob’s son death saddens everyone and leaves them feeling a sense of loss. He then shows him a rich dead man who nobody misses and some actually celebrate his death. The rich dead man’s home and corpse is robbed mercilessly. Scrooge later learns that this man is himself. The movie does not continue into the aftermath of Scrooges actual death. So, what does free will really mean and require then? Scrooge would have to agree with Schopenhauer and Campbell’s definition. For him to have free will, he has to be able to choose between doing a specific action “A” or doing another completely different action “B”. It really is fathomable that our consciousness dupes us into believing that we really have free will as Schopenhauer puts it (Schopenhauer 352). Scrooge’s story can be used as an example to illustrate Schopenhauer’s thinking. When Scrooge wakes up in the morning, he will feel like he can will to fire Bob, or he can will the exact opposite and thus keep Bob. Let us say that Scrooge fires Bob, can he really attest that he is the one who caused the will to fire Bob, or is it just the mere feeling that he could have chosen otherwise giving him the impression that he actually has free will? Schopenhauer would say that Scrooge’s consciousness duped him into thinking that he had free will, but in essence, his decision and action to fire Bob, was necessarily caused by all the circumstances (prior events) surrounding it. One of them could have been that Scrooge subscribes to fatalism! This thought brings to discussion what difference there is between fatalism and determinism in matters of free will only. It does not make sense to say that determinism is different from fatalism because if all events are necessarily caused, then there is no event that can be influenced by a non-caused event. Even blame, as suggested by Stevenson, will not come to the rescue, unless it was necessarily caused. What difference then is there, if I may beg, between determinism and fatalism when it comes to free will? Schopenhauer may argue that Marley’s intervention may ultimately show the difference between fatalism and hard determinism because fatalism suggests that Scrooge’s current behavior will not ultimately decide what happens in Scrooge’s afterlife because this is already fated. To this I will be in agreement! However, Schopenhauer will have to agree that no matter what Scrooge wills in his afterlife, he has no power to cause it because they will be necessarily caused by prior events. A fatalist would say that Scrooge has no power to cause what will happen to him in his after life because it has already been fated. These two views are similar in the sense that human beings cannot dictate what will happen in their future because it will either be necessarily caused as per hard determinists, or, fated as per fatalists. Schopenhauer would have to work a little harder to convince me that this should give me a sense of comfort and tranquility as he says (Schopenhauer 362). Stevenson’s view, on the other hand, attempts to shine a glimmer of hope on the deterministic view. Even these types of attempts to water down the finality of hard determinism should be a testament to how scary determinism is! If one takes the care to cross the street carefully but is killed by a vehicle anyway, Schopenhauer would say that the person’s death was necessarily caused by all the intricate circumstances/events surrounding it, surpassing the mere motive, character and action of the person. Fatalists would say it was simply fated. Similarly, if Scrooge ends up a lonely lost ghost in his afterlife despite changing his mean-spirited ways, Schopenhauer would say that other necessitating circumstances/events caused it. Fatalists would say that it was fated. Stevenson would say that Scrooge exercised free will as opposed to constraint because he voluntarily chose to do all that he did in his life. However, would he also say that Scrooge voluntarily chose to have a lonely lost afterlife? Stevenson argues that free will and determinism can coexist. He even goes ahead to say that blame implies determinism. That is, blame, in conjunction with other circumstances/events, can cause the next event. Blame, he argues, thus implies determinism because if determinism is true, then blame has to be effective and cause a change in the next event (Stevenson 386). However, there are just too many instances in life where blame does not cause a change in someone’s life, at least explicitly. For this reason, I think that Stevenson’s argument is weak. Schopenhauer on the other hand, would agree that blame can serve as one of the causal necessities for the next event, but he has other outlets for explanation of a phenomenon where a change is not seen explicitly because he can say that motive and character caused it to be otherwise. Stevenson also realizes this problem because he says that one can easily attribute this to ignorance of all the circumstances and laws that serve as causal necessities for an event, or, one can also attribute it to the absence of the causal effect of circumstances and laws (Stevenson 384). Also, Stevenson’s definition of free will as freedom as opposed to constraint is an illusion. In essence, Stevenson wants people to play to what their conscious tells them. He aptly describes these discussions that for explanation purposes can be referred to as discussions one may have their consciousness: I did it voluntarily; If I had chosen differently, I would have done it differently; I did it because I chose to (Stevenson 385). However, it can be argued that Stevenson saw the need to call it freedom as opposed to constraint, that is, constraint indicating “something which keeps our choice from controlling our actions”. This definition does not answer to the underlying question which is, does a person cause that choice or not? Stevenson only answers the question of whether after making a choice, a person is able to carry out the action without constraint. These two questions were brought up by Schopenhauer so as to distinguish the difference between what our consciousness tells us, versus what actually is: “Can you also will that which you will to will?” (Schopenhauer 352). Stevenson seems to dance right around this question and fails to address it. At one point he explains that we have to accept what he calls freedom as opposed to constraint, because it makes life readily bearable (Stevenson 386). He further explains that “the view that so and so will happen regardless of our choice is indeed a distressing doctrine” and calls this view fatalism. However, I will have to challenge that I fail to see the distinction between fatalism and determinism in terms of free will because as much determinism accepts that our choices necessitate what will happen in the future, we do not cause that choice. Thus, even if a person has motive and character to rely on, there are many other external factors that will also necessitate the next event in a persons life. Even the very motive and character of a person were necessarily caused! For Scrooge, life and afterlife seems to very grim for his future is either fated, or it is necessarily caused, but for Stevenson, you will do it all voluntarily! One area that makes a lot of sense in Campbell’s definition of free will, is that free will pertains to inner acts (Campbell 398). His explanation of this using the robot example really hits home to show how overt actions do not hold weight in terms of the individual who causes them as much inner acts and choices do. Campbell, like Schopenhauer also cautions against believing that you always have free will because your consciousness tells you so (Campbell 403). Campbell is of the view that we do not have free will, except in the few cases where we face what he calls “moral temptation”. He says that this is so because when we face moral temptations, we are in essence choosing whether or not to oppose our characters, and thus the decision or outcome is not determined by our character (which to Campbell is a restraint), but by us as sole authors (Campbell 404). He continues to explain that it is only in non-temptation situations that we do not have free will because our choices depend on character and the strongest desires or motives (Campbell 405). Campbell does indeed encompass Scrooge’s wish. Scrooge would have jumped with glee had Campbell been the fourth ghost! However, like Scrooge asked the “ghost of Christmas yet to come”, does this mean that the grim future he has been shown in his afterlife is escapable? I think Campbell would say that yes it is, because Scrooge will get to experience many of those moral temptations, if not have a life full of moral-temptations since he is a mean-spirited person planning on doing good. Since moral-temptation situations are unpredictable according to Campbell, then, as a major part in Scrooges life, he may be able to change the course in his life. However, since Campbell does agree that libertarianism is compatible with predictability (Campbell 408), then a life full of random acts which are neither affected by previous random acts seems to suggest that Scrooge’s afterlife still has to be predicted using his character, morals, values and beliefs. It seems like Scrooge has run out of options! Human beings, really, do not have free will and seem not to be in control of their futures.