Are our actions determined or free? What amount of free will do you really want? These are difficult questions Philosophers for millennia – and there are still no perfect answers.
It turns out, a child’s TV character can give a hint.
Thomas the Tank EngineHe behaves as a human, even though he is a locomotive. He makes decisions and makes choices. He is morally responsible and gets punished when he does wrong.
You will find that things are more complex if you dig deeper. He is an engine. His movements are determined primarily by the track layout, the engine’s workings and the workers at the railway. His free will is a illusion.
The laws of physics describe how a past event can result in a future event. If I place a kettle on the stove, for example, the laws of physics will apply. ThermodynamicsDetermine that the water will boil at some time in the future. It will only boil if you don’t interrupt the kettle or hob.
A A powerful philosophical argumentFree will states are against the idea that we can’t change the past or the laws of physics. Therefore, we can’t change the future.
Because the future is a result of the past and the laws of physics say that the past will lead to the future, this is why it is so. There are no alternatives to the future.
This applies to us as well: our bodies, made up of atoms or molecules, are physical objects. They are subject to the laws of physics. However, every decision and every action that we take can be traced back ultimately to the initial conditions of the universe.
It may seem like we are free to make our own decisions, but it isn’t. Just an illusion. Thomas is no different: Thomas might appear to be free, but he is bound by the track layout and the timetable.
He is not open for alternatives. He is a steam engine that follows the laws of thermodynamics.
Moral responsibility
Thomas’ actions cannot be compared to other options, so why is he reprimanded for his mistakes? If Thomas were a machine, wouldn’t it make sense to assume that he is morally responsible?
Even though it is odd to praise my kettle for boiling the water, it should be praised if it could.
The USA Harry Frankfurt, philosopherAn has been developed Innovative thought experimentWe must be able to see that the future doesn’t have to be open for alternative options in order to be morally resolute.
Two agents are needed. Let’s call Killer and Controller. Controller is connected to Killer’s brain with electrodes. If Killer doesn’t do as Controller wants, he switches on the electrodes – forcing Killer to obey.
Controller wants Victim to die. He decides to direct Killer to kill Victim. It turns out Killer really wants Victim to also die, so she kills Victim with no Controller intervention. The electrodes remain on.
What is the moral to this story? Killer’s actions weren’t open to other options (if she had chosen not to kill Controller, Controller would have forced Killer to do so anyway), but she is still guilty and she was sentenced as a murderer.
Thomas appears to be in the same position: he follows the rules of railways and is allowed to make his own decisions. He stops if he doesn’t. The driver, conductor or the manager intervene. Fat Controller, ominous.
However, he is still disciplined when things go sour. His actions are not open for alternatives, but that does not change that fact.
What is the ideal amount of free will?
How about a universe in which Thomas’ future is uncertain? There, would he be happy?
Even though we may be uncomfortable with the possibility that our actions could be determined, there is no better alternative. Uncertain futures in a universe. undeterminedIt is chaotic when it is too open for alternative options.
I want to be sure that my kettle will boil once it’s on the hob. Unstable water that turns to frozen orange juice in a flash is not where we would choose to live.
Thomas is the same. Thomas would have no universe if he was allowed to fly off the tracks and take to the air.
His character captures the essence of our intuitions about free choice. We have to choose and take moral responsibility. However, we do not want our actions completely determined. We desire our free will to exist somewhere between total determinism, and complete randomness.
Matyáš MoravecGifford Postdoctoral Fellow, Philosophy University of St Andrews
This article was republished by The ConversationUnder a Creative Commons License Please read the Original article.
