Order in society rests on the idea of moral responsibility. Having committed a misdemeanor, a person should be held accountable for it. Dirk Pereboom, professor of philosophy at Cornell University, thinks otherwise: our behavior is controlled by forces beyond our control, so there is no responsibility. And our lives will change for the better if we admit it.
Psychologies: How is free will related to morality?
Derk Perebum: First, our attitude toward free will determines how we treat criminals. Suppose we believe that we are free in our actions. The criminal understands that he is doing evil. So we have the right to punish him in order to restore justice.
But what if he was not aware of his actions? For example, due to mental disorders. There is a point of view that we should still apply measures to him in order not to encourage rampant crime. But then we do it not because he is guilty, but as a deterrent. The question is, do we have the right to make a visual aid out of a person?
The second point concerns our daily relationships with people. If we believe in free will, then we justify aggression towards offenders. This is what moral intuition tells us. It has to do with what the philosopher Galen Strawson called rocket launchers. If someone has done something bad to us, we feel resentment. This is a reaction to injustice. We take out our anger on the offender. Of course, being angry is also “bad,” and we often feel ashamed when we inadvertently give vent to anger. But if our feelings are hurt, we believe we have a right to be. The offender knew that he would hurt us, which means that he himself «asked for it.»
If we believe in free will, then we justify our aggression towards the offender
Now let’s take small children. When they do something bad, we don’t get angry with them the way we would with adults. We know that children are not yet fully aware of their actions. Of course, we can also be unhappy if a child breaks a cup. But the reaction is definitely not as strong as in the case of adults.
Now imagine: what if we take it for granted that no one has free will, not even adults? What will this change in our relationship with each other? We will not hold each other responsible — at least not in a strict sense.
And what will it change?
DP: I think the rejection of free will will lead to the fact that we will stop looking for justification for our aggression, and in the end it will benefit our relationship. Let’s say your teenager is rude to you. You scold him, he also does not remain in debt. The conflict escalates even more. But if you forego the reactive mindset by showing restraint instead, you will achieve a more positive outcome.
Usually we get angry precisely because we believe that without this we will not achieve obedience.
DP: If you respond with aggression to aggression, you will get an even stronger reaction. When we try to suppress the will of another with anger, we encounter resistance. I believe that there is always an opportunity to express dissatisfaction constructively, without aggression.
Yes, you can’t beat yourself up. But we will still be angry, it will be noticeable.
DP: Yes, we are all subject to biological and psychological mechanisms. This is one of the reasons why we cannot be completely free in our actions. The question is how much importance do you give to your anger. You may think that he is justified because your offender is guilty and should be punished. But you can say to yourself, “He did this because it is in his nature. He can’t change her.»
By letting go of resentment, you can focus on how to fix the situation.
Maybe in a relationship with a teenager it will work. But what if we are oppressed, our rights are violated? Not reacting to injustice means condoning it. We may be seen as weak and helpless.
DP: A protest doesn’t have to be aggressive to be effective. For example, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were supporters of peaceful protest. They believed that in order to achieve something, you should not show anger. If you protest with reasonable aims, without showing aggression, it will be more difficult for your opponents to incite hatred against you. So there is a chance that they will listen to you.
We must find another, more effective way to resist evil, which would exclude retribution.
In King’s case, the protest took very broad forms and led to a victory over segregation. And mind you, King and Gandhi did not look weak or passive at all. Great power emanated from them. Of course, I do not want to say that everything was done without anger and violence. But their behavior provides a model for how resistance can work without aggression.
This view is not easy to accept. Are you facing resistance to your ideas?
DP: Certainly. But I think the world will be a better place if we give up our belief in free will. Of course, this means that we will have to reject moral responsibility as well. In many countries, including the United States, there is a widespread belief that criminals should be severely punished. Its supporters argue as follows: if the state does not punish evil, people will take up arms and judge themselves. Trust in justice will be undermined, anarchy will come.
But there are prison systems that are organized differently — for example, in Norway or Holland. There, crime is a problem for the whole society, not for individuals. If we want to eradicate it, we need to make society better.
How can this be achieved?
DP: We must find another, more effective way to resist evil. A way that would exclude retribution. Simply giving up belief in free will is not enough. An alternative moral system needs to be developed. But we have examples before our eyes. Gandhi and King were able to do it.
If you think about it, it’s not that hard. Human psychology is quite mobile, it lends itself to change.