It’s a free country so I can do whatever I want! My fellow peers and I during the scholarly era known as elementary school shouted out this phrase whenever we didn’t want to do (or stop doing) something. Clearly, we now understand that there are laws and regulations in place to prevent certain immoral activities and that inhibit the absolute free will that we desired. However, to a certain degree, people do believe that they possess free will—they are able to make the decisions independent of other factors. In other words, every choice is theirs to make. Is that really true? Perhaps the concept of free will is just an attempt to fool us into believing the façade of control. Perhaps free will is just an illusion so that we don’t feel manipulated and used. Perhaps we exist as the product of society and the “choices” we make are the ones put forth by society.
What could possibly inhibit our free will? Well, the answer is simple: we do. It is common knowledge that in general, people will work hard to make more money. Money or wealth is primarily used as a means to an end. The ends may differ: power, fame, or material objects. In our materialistic society, an irrational need for more stuff is prevalent. However, not just any ordinary stuff will do—we desire the better, newer, and more prestigious stuff. We slave away and exhaust our time under the sun to earn the manmade construct of money and all this effort is consumed to satisfy our irrational hunger. The end result is a drastic reduction in the choices we can make. It is significantly more difficult to consider alternate options when driven by this materialistic desire. However, the illusion of free will is not caused just by this one desire. In the philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s perspective, the sum of all desires is responsible for overcoming all “active” thought that could lead possibly lead to free will.[1] He states that when people cannot overcome their desires, they believe that their subsequent decision was of their free will. However, since they decided to pursue the desire, this exemplifies the delusion of free will. Our choices are merely the manifestation of our innate irrational desires. It is impossible for us to exhibit free will when the possibility of choices is limited and the conclusive decision that we “make” is already settled long before we even know it.
Besides our desires, environmental factors also change our orientation in making choices. The semblance of the choice in career, for example, is an illusion. Many people will choose a career considering financial stability first and foremost. While some people may pick a career that pays less because of their particular interests, they are ultimately still under employment for the purpose of earning money. There are still exceptions in the case of other environmental factors that override society’s emphasis on money. The important point is that a community’s influence can heavily change an individual’s prospective choices. For example, an Amish man that grew up with no technology will most likely not use technology in his life. What is significant here is that environmental factors condition people to not even consider certain choices. This severe limitation of the number of potential options available to someone ultimately prevents free will. A parallel can be drawn between this and the logical fallacy of false dilemma in which the arguer only presents a few options when at least one more option is possible. For instance, the classic statement, “Either you’re with me or against me,” illustrates this fallacy. In the same way a person could fall subject to this fallacy and believe it, we are under the spell of environmental influences that prevent us from seeing more options. The very nature of our upbringing impacts the choices we make. Just like with our desires, our experiences hinder our ability to express free will.
In the same way a nation’s laws would prevent an individual’s absolute freedom, an individual’s freedom is further constrained through their own needs. We are not allowed to conduct any sort of behavior we desire just because we are in a free country. In fact, we may not even control the ability to make the decision to behave a certain way. When it comes to our “freely” made decisions, we are limited in what those decisions could be. They could be influenced by our unconscious desires and the past experiences deeply engrained within us. The state of existence that we all share consists of being influenced and influencing the people we interact with every day. Perhaps that is enough to live out our lives peacefully. Perhaps absolute free will is not necessarily the best thing for everyone. Perhaps true freedom exists not in despair of the dream of free will, but in the comfort of accepting our limitations.
[1] Spinoza, Benedictus de, and G. H. R. Parkinson. Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Your topic was definitely one of the most compelling ones. It was very controversial however – kind going into the free will war zone. At places, I think your essay would benefit from a more cohesive argument. You kind of emphasize the fact that we don’t have free will thanks to ourselves. The problem is that yes, we are limited by what we understand and the things our minds can fathom, but if you argue this way, then there exists no free will at all. I would turn more towards arguing that there are many things we choose to do because we don’t know any better or cant imagine anything else. I think that this would make the your logic more clear.
I thought this was an interesting topic to write about. I found myself getting a little lost at times during the essay. One thing that could make the essay more engaging would be if you had personal examples or situations that people face every day and explain how that proves your claim.