Compatibilism and Free Will: A Case Study

Case Study: The Man with the Tumor

• In 2000, a 40-year-old man was arrested for possessing child pornography and molesting his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
• The man had no prior history of child sexual abuse and was confused by the sudden change in his sexual behavior.
• Brain scans revealed a large tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain that controls sexual urges.
• After the tumor was removed, his pedophilic urges disappeared.
• The urges returned a year later, and another scan showed the tumor had regrown.
• After the second surgery, the pedophilic urges subsided permanently.
• The case raises questions about whether the man's behavior was a result of free will, determinism due to a medical condition, or a combination of both.

Compatibilism: Bridging Determinism and Free Will

• Compatibilism suggests that the universe operates according to fixed laws, where the past determines the future.
• Compatibilists believe that some human behaviors are genuinely free.
• Soft Determinism suggests that while everything is predetermined, actions can still be considered "free" when self-determined.
• Self-determined actions are caused by internal psychological states, implying moral responsibility for one's actions.
• Determinists reject the idea of moral responsibility, while compatibilists embrace it.

Moral Responsibility and the Limits of Free Will

• Compatibilism questions the extent of moral responsibility when actions are predetermined by internal motivations.
• The case of the man with a brain tumor challenges the notion of free will when desires are beyond one's control.
• People with severe mental illnesses highlight the difficulty of assigning responsibility when actions are caused by internal factors.
• Compatibilists may argue that actions are free due to their internal origins, blurring the lines of accountability.
• Behavior under the influence, such as drinking, raises questions about attributing actions to the person or the substance.
• The causes of a drunk person's actions involve internal factors like body chemistry, alcohol, and external factors like food consumption.

Frankfurt Cases: Challenging the Principle of Alternative Possibilities

• The principle of alternative possibilities suggests that free will requires the ability to do otherwise.
• Philosopher Harry Frankfurt argued that individuals can be morally responsible for actions even when they could not have done otherwise.
• Frankfurt cases involve situations where a person is prevented from doing otherwise but still acts according to their desires.
• One such situation involves a man who plans to rig an election by implanting devices in voters' brains.
• The devices stay dormant unless the voter decides to vote for the Republican Party, in which case they force them to vote for the Democratic Party.
• The man votes for the Democratic Party due to their sincere beliefs, thus rendering the device dormant.
• Frankfurt argues that the voter is still responsible for their vote, despite lacking the ability to vote differently.
• Frankfurt cases exploit the intuition that responsibility stems from the alignment of actions with inner choices, rather than external factors.
• The distinction between internal and external factors is blurry, as personal traits and responses are shaped by upbringing and experiences.
• Examples reveal fundamental issues within compatibilism, blurring the distinction between internal and external causes.

Degrees of Freedom and Control

• The question of whether we are free is less relevant than the amount of control we possess.
• People should be held accountable, with praise or blame, according to their control over their actions.
• Factors that reduce control should be considered when assigning praise or blame.
• Actions beyond our control, such as sneezing, diminish responsibility.
• Actions that could have been controlled, such as where one sneezes, increase responsibility.
• Responsibility on actions are reduced while drunk, but not eliminated, due to the choice to drink under normal circumstances.
• Asking "Am I free?" is the wrong question; instead, ask "How much control do I have?"
• The more control we have, the more responsible we are.

Implications for Understanding Freedom and Responsibility

• The view allows us to reconcile the deterministic nature of the universe with our subjective sense of freedom.
• "Sense of freedom" equates to "having control."
• Brain disorders, such as epilepsy or Tourette's syndrome, can impair control, as can the pedophilic urges that developed in a brain tumor patient.
• Brains can be trained to control various aspects of behavior, such as delaying urination, breaking bad habits, and acquiring good ones.
• Internal factors influencing actions do not necessarily negate freedom.
• Every choice is predetermined, but humans can still make choices that are not predetermined.
• Compatibilism explores whether internally motivated actions can be considered free in a deterministic world and looks at Frankfurt cases.
• Patricia Churchland rejects the idea of absolute freedom, focusing instead on the degree of control over actions.