What if everything you’ve ever done, from your greatest triumphs to your most embarrassing mistakes, was completely out of your control?
That’s the startling claim from renowned Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky in his new book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.” Let me explain this further.
Beyond Conscious Control
Sapolsky argues that despite our strong intuition that we are the masters of our own destinies, the latest scientific evidence suggests our choices are actually shaped by a complex web of biological, psychological, and environmental factors beyond our conscious control.
If he’s right, it would mean we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.
This is a disturbing idea with profound implications for how we think about morality, justice, and personal responsibility. But is Sapolsky’s provocative thesis correct?
The Case against Free Will
Over his 40+ year career studying human and animal behavior, Sapolsky has come to a startling conclusion – we have no more free will over our actions than we do over a seizure or our heartbeat. He contends that while it feels like we are consciously controlling our decisions, they are really the product of unconscious neurological processes shaped by our genes, environments, and experiences.
“We’ve got no free will,” Sapolsky bluntly states. “Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”This may seem like a fringe view, but Sapolsky is not alone. (ref)
Many philosophers and scientists have questioned the existence of libertarian free will. Neuroscience experiments have shown that brain activity associated with a decision occurs before a person consciously makes a choice, suggesting the outcome was already set.(ref)
If our wills aren’t free, Sapolsky argues that we need to radically rethink our notions of moral responsibility. How can it be just to praise or blame people for actions that were ultimately outside their control?
A world without free will may require us to be more compassionate and less retributive.
Reasons for Doubt
Not everyone is convinced by the case against free will, however. Critics argue that even if our choices are shaped by factors outside our control, there is still a meaningful sense in which they are “up to us.”
Our ability to rationally reflect on our desires, weigh consequences, and regulate our impulses affords us a degree of agency, even if it isn’t the ultimate variety. Reducing human choice to unconscious brain activity ignores the reality of conscious reasoning.
There are also concerns about the consequences of jettisoning belief in free will. Would it provide people with an excuse to behave badly? Undermine notions of personal accomplishment? Erode the functioning of society? Even some who are skeptical of metaphysical free will worry that belief in it serves useful functions.
An Unsettled Question
Ultimately, whether humans have free will in some metaphysically ultimate sense remains a difficult and unresolved question. Sapolsky has presented a formidable challenge to our intuitive belief in conscious control over our choices. But the debate is far from settled.
What’s clear is that the question is not merely academic – it touches on issues at the very core of human life and society. How we understand the causes of human behavior has major implications for our systems of responsibility, punishment, and moral judgment.
As our scientific understanding of the brain advances, it will likely continue to shape and disrupt our traditional understandings of choice and agency. Grappling with the potential reality and consequences of a world without free will is a major challenge ahead.
Read Next:
Nancy Maffia
Nancy received a bachelor’s in biology from Elmira College and a master’s degree in horticulture and communications from the University of Kentucky. Worked in plant taxonomy at the University of Florida and the L. H. Bailey Hortorium at Cornell University, and wrote and edited gardening books at Rodale Press in Emmaus, PA. Her interests are plant identification, gardening, hiking, and reading.
