To determine whether a particular action was decided upon by an individual or whether the
action was predetermined one must study its cause. In studying cause one finds that
there are two types of causes those that are typified by natural laws, such as a dropped
book falling to the ground, and those typified by the moral considerations of men. This
distinction is important because it shows both that no man can control his environment
contrary to the laws of natural or scientific laws, but neither are his actions
completely out of his control.
The first type of cause we can consider as accepted facts, these would be the natural
and scientific laws that all objects must obey. It is obviously false to assume that a
man may walk through a tree or fly like a bird, but these things can be factors in the
set of causes leading to an action.
The second type of cause is more difficult to define. It is made up of the past
experience and perceptions of men, but more importantly it is the way in which men use
these things. This type of cause is arrived at differently in everyone, and it cannot be
measured, predicted, or understood as well as the other type. In fact it is often unable
to be seen at all, but it must exist simply because the entire world or even the simple
workings of one man's brain cannot be described completely using only the laws of nature.
A complex moral decision is created in the mind of men by more that just a random or
predictable set of electrical impulses, but by the not completely understood spiritual
and psychological make-up of men. This type is the "true" cause of an action.
When one sees this combination of causes he must accept the idea of dualism. Dualism is
the idea that there are two hemispheres of the universe, the physical, ordered and
understood by science, and the spiritual, abstract and not understood. The spiritual
hemisphere is the force that guides actions that cannot be explained solely by physical
causes. While the moralistic cause may have more weight in the type of action, it cannot
ever defy natural laws. For this reason both radical determinism and free will seem
impossible. With this description given, to determine the amount of free will that a
thing has, it is only necessary to see how that thing uses or is affected by the two
types of causes.
Let us first consider man. Man is obviously the creature for which this argument is
designed principally. Man is affected by his physical surroundings and uses a complex
cognitive system and a complicated set of morals to consider his actions. Man might
first, upon seeing a picture, be stimulated neurologically by and use past experience to
make a recognized pattern from the shapes seen. This would be the purely physical and
determine reaction to the picture, but this would probably not be the total reaction.
Man might use his knowledge to create opinions about the picture, he might experience an
emotion in response to it. He might ultimately make judgments based on the opinions and
emotions that in a way that is not scientifically ordered, understood, or predictable.
Man then, must have free will within the bounds of natural law.
The distinction is more difficult in the case of a dog. A dog quite obviously is
affected by his physical surroundings, but can he use cognitive processes to make
decisions beyond his instinctual drives? The answer to this question is yes, and no. A
dog can rely on past experience and in the very simplistic ideas of rewards and
punishments can determine right from wrong. This alone does not give a dog free will, he
could still be bounded by his past experience and have little conscience effect on his
decisions. However, as many dog owners know, dogs often do purely "human" things which
show their ability to exert some level of control over their actions beyond the
instinctual level. For example, a dog probably, on seeing his owner after being left
alone for the day, would have the physical reaction of noting the presence of and
recognizing the owner. The dog might connect the return of the owner with a filling of
his food dish and anticipate it with hunger. These would be determined reactions set
both by the instincts of the animal and his past experiences, however, the dog might also
feel the emotion of anger towards the owner for having left him alone for the day, and
act out against him to show his displeasure. This would be an example of the dog working
outside of or even against his instincts and exerting some level of control over his
actions. This leads one to believe that a dog does have a minimal amount of free will,
again within the constraints of his physical environment.
Lastly it is less difficult to decide the amount of the of free will that a rock has. A
rock is affected by its physical environment, but has no means of decision making in
order to act on its own. It therefore is affected solely by its environment and has no
free will.
|