Stanford University neurobiologist and MacArthur “genius” grant winner Robert Sapolsky has spent over 40 years studying humans and primates, only to arrive at a contentious conclusion: the notion of free will is a myth. His new book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will,” builds on this provocative premise, suggesting that our behaviors and decisions are completely beyond our conscious control, as preordained as the beating of our hearts or the convulsions of a seizure.
Sapolsky isn’t alone in his deterministic view. Gregg Caruso, a philosopher at SUNY Corning and co-director of the Justice Without Retribution Network, shares Sapolsky’s perspective, advocating that understanding the lack of free will could lead to more humane and effective practices in criminal justice by focusing on preventing future harm rather than assigning blame.
Sapolsky’s argument is grounded in the myriad of factors influencing our every action—genes, upbringing, stress levels, cultural background, and an infinite regression of prior causes. He equates the act of picking up a pen not to an exercise of free will but to an action as predictable as the targeted ads on our social media feeds, influenced by our likes, clicks, and searches.
Despite the scientific evidence Sapolsky presents, there are concerns about the societal implications of dismissing free will. Studies have shown that disbelief in free will can lead to increased cheating, aggression, and a lack of helpfulness—though Sapolsky remains skeptical of these findings, suggesting they are too insignificant to believe that our civilization’s fabric would unravel without the belief in free will.
At its core, the debate over free will probes into the foundations of our justice system, our interpersonal relationships, and our self-perception. Are we truly responsible for our actions if they are the result of unchosen factors? Is it just to punish individuals when their behavior is an output of their biology and environment? These are the questions Sapolsky raises, potentially reshaping our approach to justice and our understanding of human behavior.
Sapolsky’s stance is far from conclusive, as he acknowledges the complexities and the potential risks in telling people they lack free will. Yet, he suggests a more compassionate society could emerge if we recognize the deep-seated influences on human behavior. Like the understanding that epilepsy is a disease and not demonic possession, Sapolsky hopes we might one day see personal responsibility through the lens of scientific discovery, reducing the inclination for harsh punishment and self-reproach. In the end, he is certain of one thing: it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness, even if the philosophical underpinnings of that belief are tangled in debate.
Relevant articles:
– After decades of study, a scientist has concluded that we do not have free will.
– Do You Have Free Will?
– Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will