Free Will According to Robert Kane and Derk Pereboom, Essay Example

The classic argument over the existence of free will involves the apparent contradiction of the existence of elements of true freedom with determinism defined by unbroken chains of cause and effects which start when we are born and continue throughout our lives. A discussion of free will and determinism often shows just how many different positions there related to the subject. This question combining the two factors produces answers far deeper than those posed about whether either or both exist or fail to exist. It is not the existence of these philosophical schema which underscore all of human action by the role they play or fail to play in behavior that’s of importance here.  Instead it’s more the case that should one, the other or both, actually exist, different conceptualization will need to be formulated regarding what all this ultimately means for free will and determinism. 

If we are given to believe both free will and determinism exist, as in fact many philosophers do believe, despite the seeming contradiction there are also a wide range of possible theories about these interrelated concepts that can be generated when the two constructs are not viewed based on a “present” or “absent” dichotomy. If such is the case, the beliefs related to these doctrines can vary significantly based on the valence of each. Additionally, many often question whether moral responsibility has a place in this equation and whether humans can truly be morally responsible based on which side of the free will – determinism dichotomy is accepted.  When free will is winning out, the question becomes not if humans can be morally responsible but how, while when determinism is on top this quandary is rarely posed.

Two prominent philosophers in the field today, Derk Pereboom and Robert Kane often disagree about parts of their theories related to free will. True free will, according to Kane, involves our ability to act without causal influences whenever possible and the ability to maintain control over unacceptable parts of our will which can become intertwined with the positive aspects until we can’t recognize good from bad any longer. 

Pereboom, a determinist, doesn’t believe that true free will exists, thus he doesn’t spend much time discussing a definition.  Instead, he believes that even when we have compete faith in the idea that we live our lives based on free will, that this is merely an illusion.  Kane contributes insight to this idea despite their difference of opinion, adding the argument that we can seemingly have complete freedom yet no free will.  

Kane describes a situation where the people have the freedom to do whatever they want every day based on their desires, yet unbeknownst to them, someone has trained them to only desire the things they want them to desire. As long as they are unaware someone else is controlling their actual will, the people will be happy believing they are free.  However, the second they learn of the deception, they become furious.  What has changed? They still can have as much of whatever they desire as they want. Yet now they are aware that the desires they have been experiencing were never their own.  It doesn’t matter that they were perfectly happy before knowing the truth. What matters is whether they are exercising their own free will or the will of another.  

In our society we take free will very seriously and it bothers us to consider the possibility that perhaps the will we believe is ours perhaps is not. This is why the free will – determinism debate has continued for such a long time and remained as passionate as when it first began.

Kane continues to elaborate upon the differentiation between freedom and free will.  He likens the idea of complete freedom to what he refers to as “surface” will, which is shallow and focuses on the materialistic things that we want, things that bring us pleasure.  Surface will isn’t strong enough to prevent others from manipulating us such that while we may think we are making our own decisions we are actually acting in accord with what we were taught instead of truly making our own choices. Kane believes that is our responsibility to refrain from viewing free will similarly to Freud’s concept of the Id, or the “I want it and I want it now,” part of the brain. Kane believes that urges make up part of will and can become intertwined with the positive aspects.  It is our job to distinguish between these aspects so as to utilize the adaptive parts of the will while restraining the parts that would create difficulty if let loose. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Pereboom who believes that every thought, belief and behavior that we have is determine and essentially we have no true control over these essential aspects of our identity nor can we take control of the choices made in regard to the way we elicit outcomes in our lives.  According to Pereboom, those who believe otherwise are simply fooling themselves.

There are three general belief systems related to the interrelationships between determinism, free will and moral responsibility.  These include the Determinants, the Compatibilists, and the Libertarians.

1) The Determinists do not believe in free will. There is no room in their conceptualization for chance, randomness or will exercised by illogical humans whose choices rarely make sense. Everything that occurs is determined and therefor it is assumed to be a necessary and compulsory element required for adaptive human outcomes across the lifespan. Determinists believe there is only one outcome ever possible which results from divine influence or the laws of nature. Paraboom is a determinist based on naturalistic reasons, specifically the idea that the laws of nature are regular and clearly determined and there’s no reason to think the lives of people aren’t determined in a similar fashion. This would mean that all of our behavior is inevitable. The problem with this idea is that if it’s true then we have no ability to exercise moral responsibility. This is because to behave in a moral manner means that the individual must have turned their will toward this goal establishing the intension to carry out the action properly.  However, Paraboom states that if someone’s actions are caused by another, even if morally reprehensible, they cannot be blamed on the one who carried them out, only on the one who’s will lead them to cause the other to perform immoral acts.  Many people also react to the concept of determinism negatively for theological reasons. They believe in an omnipotent God, and if this is true then God determines everything that happens making it seemingly difficult to understand how man could have free will.

2) Compatibilists rework the definition of freedom such that it is possible to say that our will is both determined and determining. It is determined by everything that came before, the causal series of events paired with antecedents and consequences putting it under the will of someone or something else. However, our will is also true will in another sense since no matter how it originated, it subsequently determines those thoughts, beliefs and actions that come later.  Compatibilists say that the characteristic of determinism which allows us to impose our will on future events and outcomes provides us with the ability to become morally responsible (Kane, 1994).  This is because they assert that free will and determinism are compatible with each other and not mutually exclusive. 

In comparison, incompatibilists such as Derk Perboom, believe that neither free will nor moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. Pereboom advocates for people to work on gaining the insight that without true freedom moral responsibility cannot exist and we should strive to live a satisfying and happy life despite the need to accept that free will is nothing more than an illusion.

3) Libertarians believe that free will is defined by the ability to make choices unhindered by past contingencies or shaping events. Free choice occurs when our decisions are not effected by endless chains of cause and effect such that at any time a different choice could have been made given the same situation, people and contingencies operating in that moment. It is knowing that there are always several choices and at any decision point we can choose one of any number of alternative options.

There are several responses to the determinism/free will debate. Robert Kane who is considered the father of the Libertarians believes that while determinism may make logical sense it is still false and therefore we do have free will. He distinguishes between different types of freedom, first asking why we want freedom as much as we do. He answers his own question saying that freedom gives us the control to fulfill as many of our desires as possible. Kane agrees with Aristotle that it is our character that determines much of how we think about the world, what we find meaningful and how we act towards other and in different environments. Kant goes on to add that the process of character development is not a passive one but is active in nature. He believes that children activity seek out other children and situations because they are drawn to what matches their preferences. The more they act out their preferences and remain in situations that match their inborn qualities the more their character will strengthen and form into a unified whole. 

Kane believes that despite the fact our character defines our thoughts and behaviors in the world along with what we find important and meaningful, we are responsible for shaping our nature and thus anything subsequently determine by our character is still an expression free will since, to some extent, we determined our character. In Kant’s mind the ability to determine the nature of our character from when we are young is an example of ex nihlo creation, or creation of something from nothing. According to Kant, our ability to do this proves that we not only have free will, but we use our free will to shape the person we will become. This is also the basis of moral responsibility based on the idea that individuals with the free will to know what they want, their preferences and what’s important to them would have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong and an idea of how right and wrong should play out in the world. 

Some have criticized Kane’s opinion regarding determinism, accusing him of becoming adamant about these beliefs only because it was the only way he was able to determine that would help us believe that we are moral individuals.

Paraboom on the other hand, agrees with Spinoza believing that determinism is true and we aren’t free in a way that allows for moral responsibility. Paraboom also questions whether indeterminism prevents us from being able to exercise moral responsibility. Some philosophers state that there are random moments that provide us with freedom but since it’s random we still aren’t able to control our actions. These moments within the state of indeterminism combined with the deterministic state, Paraboom believes, creates the perfect storm or a double threat against our free will. While many have called him a heavy determinist, he believes in the double threat of determinism and indeterminism being twice as preventative regarding our ability to engage in moral responsibility (Parabrom, 

Regarding moral behavior, Kant believes that there are states that we experience enabling us to act on moral fundamentals. In particular, he asserts that when caught between two choices in the absence of a push from a causal agent that there’s a 50-50 chance of choosing each option. Therefore, in the absence of influential factors, the decision to act one way or another is left entirely up to us. Kant calls this transcendental free will and states it’s the only type of free will that permits moral responsibility.

In conclusion, the doctrine of free will has been one of the most argued over philosophical constructs in history. Two of the most renowned philosophers of our time Derk Pereboom and Robert Kane continue to discuss the concept of free will and how it relates to compatibility, the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. Free will is defined by Kane as the aspects of the mind which allow us to make adaptable, healthy choices and decisions without outside agents manipulating us though also underscores the importance of control in ensuring the less adaptive aspects of the will don’t create trouble. Essentially, neither of these two philosopher as created a completely satisfying conceptualization of free will, determinism and moral reasoning. If free will exists, the theological questions of how it balances out with an omnipotent God or can operate in the face of what people may view as miracles is a question. If determinism is true then human being lack free will which is hare for many to believe they are living without. Most people can discuss what is meaningful to them, their values, morals, ethics, hopes and dreams. If none of us were capable of moral reasoning it is difficult to hypothesize how these other aspects would have developed or why they would have done so. When all is said and done, the answer will probably come in the form of an integrated theory which combines ever seemingly contradictory factors in a way that provides beneficial implications for everyone.

Works Cited

Kane, R., (N.D.). Reflections on Free Will, Determinism and Indeterminism. The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website. Retrieved 4/1/2014.

Kane, R., (1994). Free Will: Ancient Disputes, New Themes. In (I didn’t have editors, book or publisher from resource provided – please add).

Pereboom, D., (1994). Why We Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It. In (same as above).