The threat of modern sciences to moral perception
“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently” – Rosa Luxemburg
Every day we are confronted with decisions. They can be complex or simple. They can have long-term or short-term influences. They can be about political, personal, medical or financial matters. Decisions over decisions over decisions. Most people would claim that they reach these decisions of their own free will; we can decide what we want to eat, do or study. But is this really the case?
We also have to consider the fact that as we live in a society and not in isolation our decisions do not only effect ourselves but also others. So we are facing a dilemma: if we are not free to make our own decisions how can we be made responsible for the actions that we take concerning others?
The question of free will is a question that philosophers, scientists and doctors have debated for centuries. But it is a very difficult question to answer as it marks a considerable collision between a scientific and metaphysical perspective and combines many scientific, social and ethical fields.
Both Freud and Skinner, well-known philosophers, have written works in which they try to get to the bottom of the question of free will. Both have claimed that we humans are not free in our decisions as we are largely effected by influences from the outside. While Skinner has set a greater importance on environmental contingencies, Freud has highlighted the effects of unconscious conflicts as causes for our feelings, beliefs and actions. Such influences on an individual scale can be past experiences (particularly raising and education), cognitive biases, beliefs, beliefs in personal relevance etc. On a social scale social norms, culture and different media types can give redounding impulses. This implies that we are free to make decisions but not out of free will, as our decisions are determined by other factors that we are not able to control actively. This concept is called compatibilism in psychology. This is a theological term that implies that people are free to decide (this means without enforcement, extortion or under the influence of hypnosis or drugs) and choose according to their greatest desire. But what a person wants is determined by their moral nature.
Do you deny these claims? If yes then ask yourself the following questions: Have you ever altered the way you act in public because you felt that you had to act a certain way? And do you expect others to act a certain way in given situations? These scenarios are true for most of us. We all know and it is obvious that there is a difference between the way one acts in a library and a rock concert. However there are also less obvious situations that however influence major life decisions like for example decisions concerning career paths, voting and marrying. The journal “Social, Cognitive and Affective Neurosciences” has published a work in which it is stated that social norms influence decisions more than the desire for fairness. This is alarming as it means that we would rather do what society expects and not what is morally right! So now ask yourself the question: Are you who you are or who you have been told and decided to be?
But if that was not enough there are now new threats to the possibility of free will from neurosciences and genetics. Specialists in these fields have contended that psychological experiences are not only linked to external influences but also with gene-environment interactions. This simply means that a person is expected to act a certain way if he has a specific gene. For example it has been found that girls with a specific oxytocin receptor gene feel more lonely in the presence of a critical and judging friend. In addition to that addictions like alcoholism are claimed to be determined by special genetic combinations.
In addition to that disturbing studies show that neural activity patterns can be detected in study participants before they are even conscious of what they want to decide. In simple terms, this means that our brains decide before we do. So are we actually the protagonists of our actions or are we really only biochemical puppets as the American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris claims? Is freedom of will only an illusion and do we actually live under the dictatorship of our brains?
Scientifically these beliefs are referred to as determinism. This is a theory that states that the acts of free will, occurrences in nature and social as well as psychological phenomena are fully determined by preceding events or natural laws. If these findings would be further validated in other experiments and long-term studies this would mean a shock for humans concepts of guilt and responsibility. Why? Because it would imply that our actions have already been determined for us since the big bang; the decision if I choose a greasy pizza or a healthy quinoa-salad has been decided for me 13 million years ago. Going even further we have to ask ourselves how and if we even can continue to judge and penalize people for certain actions? Only a human that can freely make a decision can also be made responsible for his actions! We would have to rethink all of our principles of moral and ethics.
So what can we do if we want to be free to decide for ourselves? The answer to this seemingly difficult question is easier that many people may think. We have to make ourselves aware of the external and internal factors that influence us so that we can minimize our dependence on them and take responsibility for our life, actions and thoughts. Furthermore we have to ensure that we have a wide and rich base of experiences and knowledge at command, be it through sports, reading, traveling etc., as an increase in experiences has a direct relationship with an increase in creativity and freedom as we have more “material” that can be processed and more choices that we can choose from. But most important of all we have to slow down our life.
Currently, we are living in a time that is marked by its fast-pace. This is fueled by the development of social media and globalization. We always have to be online, it is expected that we always directly answer and we want to do everything at the same time and please everyone. This culture does not set importance to reflection, deep thought and research that includes knowledge in context. So the next time you are confronted with an important decision: take your time, think about the consequences for you and others and question your motivation. At the end of the day “haste makes waste”.
Sources:
https://ethik-heute.org/sind-wir-in-unseren-entscheidungen-frei/
http://www.spektrum.de/news/wie-frei-ist-der-mensch/1361221
http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2011/06/Entscheidungsfreiheit
https://www.psychologie-heute.de/ph-compact/detailansicht/news/gibt_es_eine_freie_entscheidung/
http://www.spektrum.de/news/ohne-zufall-gibt-es-keine-freiheit/1168814
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/ist-das-gehirn-fremdgesteuert-endlich-befreit-14034210.html
https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/how-social-norms-affect-our-decisions/
http://www.makeyourbestself.com/dowemakeourowndecisions/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/proceed-your-own-risk/201311/do-we-have-free-will