Free Will Debate is Healthy

Why discussing the coherence of moral deservedness in a deterministic world may not be the indulgent waste of time you think it is.

Many “free will arguments” revert to why we have the argument in the first place. Many people I talk to on the topic feel it’s not one worth discussing, let alone resolving. To hazard a guess: they want to take it off the table entirely, likely because their side isn’t on solid ground. Their suggestion that the argument itself is pointless and silly can serve as a handy—albeit manipulative—exit strategy for cutting their losses.

For context, my position is this:

Every quality I have, body, personality, tastes, tendencies, has been caused directly by priors and could not have been otherwise. Each cross section of time and space is preceded by another one that occurred just a split second prior. Each slice follows from the state and position of the prior slice according to the laws of physics. Life moves forward in lockstep with causality. So whether I feel in charge or not, I know, metaphysically speaking, I’m not really in charge; at least not in any way that would warrant deservedness.

That last sentence is really the crux of my side’s argument, and it’s not purely rational. I must concede that it’s for both rational and intuitive reasons that my sense of “fairness” around deservedness kicks in, and I become staunchly convinced that nobody “deserves” a larger portion of suffering or well-being compared to anyone else.

For practicality, we absolutely still do need the deterrents and incentives that guide our actions and channel our impulses. We couldn’t have a society otherwise, or at least not a very good one.

But sometimes we need to actually see each other, and ourselves, for what we are: causal beings that had no hand in making ourselves, our body, the very neurological structures and tendencies that make each of us the sort of person that we are; pushed inexorably from behind. Beings that tend to feel more agency than we actually have. And this is something we only admit about ourselves when our clearer, braver minds prevail.

When such minds do prevail, a kind of love is unlocked. When I debate “free will,” I’m trying to unlock love, I think.

And yet, the stance can piss people off, despite the good intentions: They see the whole shtick as a malignant kind of motivated reasoning that provides “excuses” for those “guilty” of laziness, immoral impulsivity, self-indulgence—forms of “failure” that ruin lives and hurt society.

That’s not the intention though.

If I’m making excuses—and perhaps I am—it’s to unlock love, with arguments that are intellectually and intuitively bulletproof.

In my free will skepticism camp, the quality of our “excuses” are pretty damn high. We have metaphysics on our side. (Like the argument above about causality. I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of that one.)

If you oppose my stance, if you believe in free will such that it warrants true moral deservedness to have more or less suffering or wellbeing than someone else, chances are you, like me, believe that you’re ultimately arguing on the side of love. This symmetry implies that there are different forms of love out there, and that’s fine.

Arguments to defend and promote love are ones worth having. And yet, the topic gets a lot of flack for being annoyingly esoteric, useless, even masturbatory.

Perhaps the first criticism is true, but I reject the others. Some of us believe having the free will debate could help the world; furthermore, that rejecting the concept of deep moral deservedness yields important positive outcomes. Ones we should all want to see in our lifetimes.

Philosopher Gregg Caruso makes the argument with legendary efficiency here, in something like ten minutes. You need only watch it once to come away with an understanding you’ll carry for the rest of your days. Please watch, for your sake and mine. 🙏

If you think the free will debate is pointless, the video provides the definitive “steelman argument” for why you might be wrong about that.

At the very least, if you watch it, you’ll never have to again wonder “why even bother talking about it?” if and when the free will thing comes up.

In short, the reason is love. And so maybe the final piece of the puzzle here is to realize that both sides argue for the same reason, albeit thru different lines of attack. We are all arguing for love. At no time should we lose sight of this. We are on the same side.

Which is why the notorious “free will debate,” when carried out in an organized, orderly, and sincere way, is not a waste of time.

What’s your position?