Volition Without Magic | The Objectivist Case For Free Will

Free will is one of the most misunderstood philosophical issues in the modern world. Mainstream culture is dominated by a view called determinism - that is, that human action is determined entirely by causes outside of one’s own control, and that the individual has no metaphysical autonomy to change his or her own life - without the aid of other external causes. Note that this billiard-ball style determinism does not necessarily hold fate to exist - that is, a specific set of future events that will inevitably occur. Rather, it merely claims that no entities have independent, volitional control over their own future.

This essay will explain why this view of human consciousness: determinism is mistaken, and is built upon both a rationalistic and thus erroneous philosophical process, and a false notion of what causation is. Simultaneously, this essay will use determinism as a backdrop to show the true nature of free will, and why the importance of this philosophical issue is so dire. This essay will make a deceptively simple yet extremely difficult to grasp case that free will exists, while illustrating the flaws in certain previous conceptions of free will. This essay is not a case for compatibilism - an unnecessary means of disguising determinism as free will. Rather, it is a radical and unconventional case for actual “libertarian” free will, which means man’s fully metaphysically free choice of his thoughts and actions.

Determinism starts by observing that causation exists, and noticing that events follow from previous causes. If a white billiard ball is hit with a pool cue, it will respond to the force by rolling in a specific direction. This process can extend through an array of billiard balls, but it becomes obvious that none of them have autonomy about which way they roll. Determinists then relate such an analogy to human consciousness. They infer that since physical systems around us - such as a pool table - behave deterministically, more complex physical systems, such as the human mind, must also act in accordance with those principles. The complexity of the human mind does not negate the fact that causation rules over our reality. Thus, the notion of an entity acting independently of causation is incoherent.

The errors of this approach are twofold; it never stops to define what causation is, and it is rationalistic (or non-introspective). Determinism assumes causation to be mechanistic, i.e. that causes produce a single, definite result. According to this view, causal divergence is impossible. However, there is no philosophical grounding from which this view is based. This is part of the rationalism of determinism - that is, the unwarranted ruling-out of causal divergence. Causation - the corollary of metaphysical identity - entails only that since all entities possess a particular nature, they must always act in accordance with their nature. This understanding of causation shows that causal divergence is theoretically possible, so long as such divergence does not entail entities acting in ways mutually exclusive to their nature.

The other side to determinism’s rationalism is its failure to utilize introspection, one of man’s important tools of self-knowledge. (This is likely due to the fact that many determinists who are scientists are used to thinking empirically, i.e. focusing on reality while dispensing of integration and introspection). While misused by some philosophers such as Descartes, introspection can provide very valuable knowledge, such as the nature of emotions, and as a consequence discovering what one values. Introspection can also reveal the nature of free will, that is, if you choose to use it.

Free will is a binary, linear choice of human consciousness. Humans have control over one thing, of which all of their actions depend: whether or not to focus one’s mind. This choice to focus one’s mind, to think or not to think, is evident even from an early age. Have you ever been in a semiconscious daze, before becoming fully conscious and focused? That is free will, in its most isolated and exalted instance. Now realize that the entirety of one’s life: career choices, romantic partners, personal relationships, etc. are a consequence of this fundamental choice. Ethically, this choice is of selfishness versus self-sacrifice. Epistemologically, it is of rationality versus irrationality. Metaphysically, it is of life or death.

Note that free will is only one dimensional; there is no freedom of action as apart from the choice whether or not to focus. For example, the choice of whether to stick to one’s diet or eat a piece of cake is contingent on this choice. If you choose to stick to your diet and refuse that piece of cake, that action is determined by your choice to focus on the fact that your long-term health is more valuable to you than the momentary pleasure of succumbing to your urges. It is impossible to succumb to one’s urges and eat that piece of cake while being fully aware of the relevant facts in mind. In order to break the diet and eat that piece of cake, you must first evade the fact that your long-term health is more valuable to you than this momentary indulgence. You must volitionally push this fact outside of your focal awareness in order to make this choice.

Nor does free will permit one to choose to change the nature of one’s mind, such that one gains omniscience or infinite intelligence. That is a ridiculous strawman offered by some advocates of determinism in order to define free will out of existence. Clearly, human beings do not possess omniscience, or the gift of infinite intelligence. Free will merely permits one to choose a specific set of options within one’s metaphysical nature. It is analogous to the completion of an exam, which possess options a), b), c), and d). You cannot choose option e) if it doesn’t exist. But you can choose within options a), b), c), and d).

Free will is not a mystic fantasy, nor is it a seductive illusion of ignorant minds. It is a real, concrete, observable, and provable fact which is self-evident the moment any philosophical discussion begins. The reason that so many people are unable to grasp the truth and nature of free will is because they aren’t being introspective, and because they have an unwarranted and false view of causation. But the truth of free will is available to all, if they choose to grasp it.