Are we free or are our actions determined by the laws of physics? And how much freedom do we really want? These questions have tormented philosophers for millennia, and there are still no perfect answers to them. It turns out, however, that a character from the children's series Thomas and Friends can give a clue. Despite being a locomotive, Tomek behaves like a human being. Makes decisions and makes choices. And he is morally responsible: when he does something wrong, he is punished. But let's look deeper and things get complicated. He is the engine. Its movements are determined by the shape of the tracks, the work of the locomotive, and railway workers. So is his free will just an illusion?
The laws of physics explain how a past event leads to the future. For example, if I put a kettle on the stove according to the laws of thermodynamics, it will boil in the near future. If I do not move the kettle or stove, there is only one possible result: the water will boil. A powerful philosophical argument against free will is that since we cannot change the past and the laws of physics, we cannot change the future. This is because the future is only a consequence of the past, and the laws of physics dictate that the past leads to the future. The future is not open to alternatives.
This also applies to us: our bodies are physical objects made up of atoms and molecules, subject to the laws of physics. But every decision and action we make can ultimately be traced under certain initial conditions at the beginning of the universe. We may think we have free will, but this is just an illusion. It is the same with Tomek's locomotive: it may feel as if it is slow, but its actions are determined by the position of the tracks and the railway timetable. What it does is not open to alternatives. After all, it is a steam engine operating according to the laws of thermodynamics.
But if Tom's actions are not open to alternatives, why is he disciplined when he does something wrong? If he were only a machine, would it make sense to think that he is morally responsible? After all, it would be strange to say that my kettle deserves praise for boiling water if it really couldn't have done otherwise.
The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt devised a brilliant thought experiment to show that the future does not have to be open to alternatives in order for us to be morally responsible. Imagine two agents, let's call them killer and controller. The controller has electrodes attached to the killer's brain. If the killer doesn't do what the controller wants, he turns on the electrodes, forcing him to surrender. The Controller really wants someone, let's call him a Victim, to die. So he's thinking of sending a Killer to kill the Victim. But it turns out that the Slayer really wants the victim to die as well, so he kills the victim without the Controller intervening. The electrodes remain off.
What is the moral of this story? Although the killer's actions were not open to alternatives (if he chose not to kill, the Controller would still force him to do so), he is still held accountable and punished as the murderer. It seems that Tomek is in the same situation: when he does something according to the rules of the railroad, he has to do it of his own free will. When he does not, someone intervenes: the driver, the conductor or the sinister Fat Controller. But he still gets reprimanded when things go wrong. The fact that his actions are not open to alternatives does not change anything.
What about a universe where Tom's future is uncertain? Will he be free there? While we're not content with the fact that our actions can be predetermined, the alternative isn't much better. A universe where the future is completely undefined, where it is too open to alternatives, is simply too chaotic. I must know that if I put the kettle on the stove, it will boil. A universe where water spontaneously turns into frozen orange juice is not a universe that most of us would like to live in.
The same goes for Tom. If he were allowed to derail, take off, or if his steam engine did not obey the laws of thermodynamics, his universe would not function. His character reflects our intuitions about free will. We need choice and moral responsibility, but we don't want our actions to be completely indeterminate. We want our free will to lie somewhere between total determinism and total randomness.
No comments:
Post a Comment