Fighting the urge to close your eyes and nod off, you glance across the room to the testifying witness. Her appearance is disheveled and the threat of another sobbing fit grows with each sentence. The jury’s section is quickly becoming unbearable- the guy next to you is studiously picking the multitude of scabs on his arms and the woman behind you will not stop tapping her nails on the armrest of her chair. It has been three days since Matthew Xander’s trial began; the finally testimony and closing statements would be given today. All that remained was to determine if Matthew had killed his wife and three kids in a heartless premeditated manner, or if it was an uncontrollable rage brought on my his head injury months earlier.
After closing statements you retreat with the other jurors to begin the deliberation. A quick vote produces groans, one third believes Matthew planned the murders, another third blames his injury, and the rest have not decided. The woman who sat behind you in the court room, Anna, stands up and begins a long rant on how his head injury is irrelevant to the murders. Freewill cannot be lost through any amount of trauma to the body. He freely chose to murder his family and the methodical method described by the prosecutor proves it was premeditated. Case closed. Being a student of philosophy, you recognized her view as that of an idealist.
A blue-collar man, Joe, stands up and begins to protest such an “idiotic and simplistic” conclusion. The defendant’s brain had clearly suffered massive trauma in the car accident earlier in the year. The greatest amount of damage being to the amygdala; he cited the evidence given by one of the doctors who had been called to testify. The accident had caused a large tumor to press against the almond shaped gland responsible for emotions, including sudden rage impulses. The tests showed it to be similar to the one found in the brain of Charles Whitman who had climbed on top of a tower and for 90 minutes “he shot at everything that moved, killing 14, wounding 38” (BrainMind.com). If freewill was capable of overpowering physical impulses the tragedy would have been avoided. Whitman had attempted to stop himself by telling therapists the impulses he felt, he even called the police asking to be arrested the day before the shooting. Notes left on the bodies of his mother and wife revealed remorse and a desire to be stopped (BrainMind.com). If freewill existed the murders would never have happened. The man, feeling pleased with his recall, reclined in his chair as he concluded Matthew had no control over his actions. The deaths were not his fault. You quickly categorized Joe as a materialist.
The speakers, and the respective one-thirds of the group, believed the case to be black and white. Either Matthew had absolute control through freewill, or he was enslaved to the actions of his body. The man with the scabs began to mumble about some middle ground between the two. Freewill existed, but the body also held power over a person’s actions. Ordinarily Matthew would never consider destroying the lives of his family, but the increase in rage impulses may have overridden his freewill. How were we supposed to decide when the body became dominate over conscious thought? The third of the group unable to decide shared the mind-body dilemma of dualists.
Being a devote Catholic yourself, your having a hard time believing Matthew had no control over his actions. However, you had also spent several semesters chasing a degree in psychology and could not discount the evidence of damage to the brain. Animal research had shown the effects of different stimuli to the amygdala and how it contributed to increased impulsive rage. The ‘sensible’ part of you knew that animals were generally not believed to have the same kind of freewill as humans- meaning they would not be able to choose against the impulses of their brain. Matthew therefor would have had the ability to resist temptation and he should have sought help. However, research has also been conducted on humans with similar results. One woman began to snarl at the researchers and continued to exhibit violent behavior after the stimulation of her amygdale had ceased (BrainMind.com). If freewill was dominate over the body she could have controlled herself, at the very least her behavior would have returned to normal immediately after the stimuli was removed.
During your internal debate, Anna and Joe had become locked in an argument and the vote remained in a three way tie. Anna dismissed the materialist’s example as nothing more than another weak minded individual. If Whitman truly did not want go on a killing rampage, he could have chosen not to. The tumor was an excuse used to justify his actions by loved ones refusing to accept Whitman’s actions as freely chosen. Evidence from the Xander murders, mostly pictures taken by the police, were being passed around the room. One young woman, originally undecided, cast her vote with Anna after being exposed once again to the gruesome remains of the four victims. Her decision was based solely on the belief that carnage of that scale could only be the result of a psychopath who enjoys killing. If it was the result of his injuries he would not have decimated the bodies in such a horrific manner.
Joe repeated the evidence given by the doctors and historical studies showing the impact of brain damage on people’s behavior. He explained the findings of multiple studies on both rats and people showing that a normally passive individual could become deadly when their brain was stimulated in specific manners. The man with the scabs eventually was swayed and cast his vote with the materialists. Joe’s rant had also managed to plant doubt in a few of the idealists minds. Perhaps freewill is not absolute.
Anna could not persuade the jurors that Matthew was guilty of first-degree murder- the evidence of head trauma was too strong. Joe was also unable to convince his peers that the defendant was only guilty of first-degree murder- the crime was too horrific. After several days of deliberation a consensus was reached and Matthew Xander was found guilty of second-degree murder.
People want to believe in freewill, they want to believe they have control over their actions…until they do something “without thinking.” It is hard to admit fault when you do something on impulse and regret is quick to set in. Suddenly hitting your sister after she does something enraging appears to be an impulse followed without thought. You acted without thinking, the fault is not yours. However, on some level of unconscious thought you had previously decided that it was alright to hurt your sibling if she was being annoying; hitting her was the response of your body based on this thought.
I believe in the concept of freewill; however I cannot throw out the restrictions a person faces from the physical world. Mind over matter is an idea I support, to a point. You cannot think yourself free of cancer, but positive thoughts can improve your quality of life and sometimes lengthen your remaining time. If I found out I only had two months to live I would prefer to spend it being with my family and creating lasting memories with my loved ones then in a hospitable chained to a bed. Living the last few weeks of my life tied to machines and isolated from other people would depress me. I would stop taking proper care of my body, as much as I could under the control of doctors, which would further weaken my physical body. The forces of mind and matter both exist and act on each other, to what extent I cannot answer