Philosophic Questions on “Free Choice and Morality” Get at Issues of Sustainability

I tutor a number of local students of all ages on a variety of subjects.  Such encounters are always rewarding to me at some level, though some cause me to think and learn more than others.

Currently, I’m helping a young man with his first college philosophy class, and coincidentally, my discussion with him here touches on the fundamental obligations we have toward our fellows.  This gets at the notion of sustainability: our duties to provide a habitable planet for one another and to future generations, and, because of that tie-in to the 2GreenEnergy theme, I thought I’d publish this email I just sent to him.  For those in a hurry, the only real relevant part is underlined in the text below.

OK, so you need to write about free choice and morality. 

First, ask yourself:  what exactly does that mean?  What really is free choice?  Think about that.  You might begin by asking yourself: Does it exist at all?  Is it possible that we’re genetically programmed to behave in certain ways?  Or what if our upbringing imposes gross limitations on the way we can practically be expected to deal with certain events in our lives?  What about the idea that some people are born with “diseases” that essentially force them to steal, become drug addicts, or whatever? 

Note that if you don’t think free choice exists at all, then you really don’t believe in morality, i.e., you don’t believe that any action a person takes, regardless of how disturbing, can be considered immoral.  When a hungry lion eats a zookeeper, we may call the lion “vicious” (i.e., acting out of vice, or immorality), yet that’s really incorrect, as lions don’t choose to act in certain ways; when they’re hungry and are given the opportunity, they eat.  If a person doesn’t have a choice, whatever he does can’t be considered immoral. 

Most people believe that people have free choice in the vast majority of the decisions they make.  But, again, try to “unpack” this; ask yourself exactly what this means.  Is there a difference between choosing to cheat/not cheat on a test, or to get drunk/stay sober, versus choosing to hand over your wallet to a guy who demands it and has a gun to your head? 

Are there gray areas?  If I shoplifted a new memory card for my smart phone, is that equivalent to a homeless person’s stealing food to feed his hungry kids?  If I started to deal heroin so I could afford a nicer car, is that the same as an addict’s engaging in the same dealings, if this is the only way for him to obtain a drug that had somehow taken over his life? 

If you believe in this area of brain chemistry controlling our behavior, are there limits?  Let’s say Mother Theresa was born with a disposition to do good, and Jack the Ripper was born with the opposite.  But aren’t there some basic expectations we can place on all human beings? 

Yet here’s something else you may wish to consider.  I bring it up because it’s a fairly new (and, to me, interesting) revelation in neuroscience.  Liberals by definition believe that society should protect those who are least able to protect themselves, e.g., the oppressed, the children, future generations, etc., and accordingly, tend to think of themselves as kind and decent people.  At the same time, liberals tend to view conservatives, who tend to reject this notion and believe strongly in individual liberty and accountability, as cold-hearted people.  Now check this out: science is finding that liberals and conservatives have radically different brain chemistries; these groups were born with brains that work differently from one another.  Apparently, liberals are acting out  their “kind and gentle” behaviors out of the force of the wiring of their brains in the same way conservatives act out theirs.

But again, even if we’re born with certain chemistries in the direction of bad behavior, does society have the right to demand that we find the willpower to overcome them?

My advice in closing: don’t be afraid of taking a position even if others consider it odd or extreme, if you can defend it in a solid, reasoned way.  That’s what this subject is all about.  You’re taking on a question that people (like Socrates, pictured above) have been wrestling with for thousands of years.  If all you’re doing is agreeing with what you think your professor believes, you might as well be out at a frat party.  Also, start on your paper the very day it’s assigned; don’t wait until the last minute.  Over time, develop a terrific paper, and hand it in when you feel it’s your best work.  Then hit the frat parties.

As usual, if you want to send me what you come up with in advance of your submitting it, I’ll be happy to comment and work some of the issues through with you.