All the above virtues and vices are attached to a person, with an assumption that one has Free Will. But, does one really have Free Will? Is one totally responsible for one's actions? Is a person responsible for every decision taken and every action that resulted out of those decisions? Are we the authors of our thoughts? Or, are we the victims of circumstances?
Will two individuals, who had gone through different kinds of upbringing and exposed to different kinds of societies, think/react similarly in a similar situation, though they don't have any different external influences whatsoever at that particular point of time to influence their reaction one way or the other? They usually don't. That implies, they are the sum total of their experiences. Does that imply existence of any Free Will?
These are some of the questions that Sam Harris, an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist, discusses in this book. He concludes that Free Will is an illusion.
We don't have control on our thought process. Unconscious events determine our thoughts and actions, which themselves are determined by prior events, which we are not consciously aware of. Martin Heisenberg (Son of Werner Heisenberg - Uncertainty Principle), a neurobiologist, observed a different kind of uncertainty in brain - Certain processes in brain occur at random with no external influence. Though this implies that the resultant thoughts are generated without any external influence, this can't be called Free Will as this doesn't mean someone has control on it.
Some of the criminal justice systems in the world seems to divest criminals of their crime, if they found to be victims of their biology. For example, if a brain tumour or abnormal secretion of Serotonin (a neurotransmitter) in brain is proven to have caused a person to behave in a certain way (which is criminal), the person can't be held totally responsible for his malicious actions. Victims of their biology are exonerated of their wrongdoings, considering that they don't have Free Will while committing the crimes. What about victims of circumstances? Do they have control on circumstances and Free Will, while acting in a certain way? That's a pretty deep question.
When we break the origins of a thought into two simple parts, genetic and environmental, one doesn't seem to have control on either. One doesn't choose place of birth, parents, religion, society (at least not until adulthood), neighbourhood while growing up etc., As they are the foundations of one's thought process, one hardly has any Free Will.
I would summarise the takeaways from the book as follows: It's hard to digest the proposition that a person doesn't have any control on his/her thoughts, and one just acts as per the result of some unknown algorithm working on some unknown data. But, trying to appreciate the fact that people are, more often, victims of circumstances that are not in their control, helps us treat each other better.
Will appreciating lack of Free Will cleanses one of any guilt for one's wrongdoings and leads to a chaotic, immoral, unpredictable and dangerous society? That's a philosophical question that overlaps with questions like, whether the world would become unlivable if majority of people stop believing in Gods and super-nature!
Some of the criminal justice systems in the world seems to divest criminals of their crime, if they found to be victims of their biology. For example, if a brain tumour or abnormal secretion of Serotonin (a neurotransmitter) in brain is proven to have caused a person to behave in a certain way (which is criminal), the person can't be held totally responsible for his malicious actions. Victims of their biology are exonerated of their wrongdoings, considering that they don't have Free Will while committing the crimes. What about victims of circumstances? Do they have control on circumstances and Free Will, while acting in a certain way? That's a pretty deep question.
When we break the origins of a thought into two simple parts, genetic and environmental, one doesn't seem to have control on either. One doesn't choose place of birth, parents, religion, society (at least not until adulthood), neighbourhood while growing up etc., As they are the foundations of one's thought process, one hardly has any Free Will.
I would summarise the takeaways from the book as follows: It's hard to digest the proposition that a person doesn't have any control on his/her thoughts, and one just acts as per the result of some unknown algorithm working on some unknown data. But, trying to appreciate the fact that people are, more often, victims of circumstances that are not in their control, helps us treat each other better.
Will appreciating lack of Free Will cleanses one of any guilt for one's wrongdoings and leads to a chaotic, immoral, unpredictable and dangerous society? That's a philosophical question that overlaps with questions like, whether the world would become unlivable if majority of people stop believing in Gods and super-nature!
