In order to move forward with our lives, we constantly need to make decisions. It can be simple like which ice cream you should eat after dinner, or it can be difficult like which career path you want to take. We have so many options that we can somehow choose how we want our lives to end up; however, the question being asked is are we necessarily free when we choose our decisions? In this essay, d’Holbach tries to prove that man is not free while Wolf considers the other side. I agree with Wolf because she does not necessarily provide a set answer on whether people are free or not, unlike d’Holbach.
D’Holbach argues that man is not free due to determinism, the idea that since all matter is subject to physical laws, there is no choice or freedom of will. D’Holbach’s argument looks like this:
- P1: The will is determined to act on whichever desire is strongest
- P2: You don’t pick or choose your desires
Conclusion: You don’t pick or choose your actions so free will is an illusion.
D’Holbach states that souls do not exist however humans have such complicated brains that leads us to think that we are free; so, it is pretended that man is free, “despite of the shackles by which he is bound” (d’Holbach, 2). According to d’Holbach, the will is “a modification of the brain by which it is disposed to action…is necessarily determined by the qualities, good or bad, agreeable or painful …of the object or the motive that acts upon his sense … and is resuscitated by his memory” (d’Holbach, 3). In summary, he is basically stating that our will is a way of our brain making decisions to choose which actions to do based on the qualities of each choice. Our brain will only choose the desire that is stronger. D’Holbach advises that the choices we make are only due to our biology and physical laws rather than actually having a choice. There are things that are outside of our control that influences our choices making us not free.
We do not control biology such as the DNA or genes we inherit from our parents. We do not get to choose what time we want to be born or what race we come out to be; it is not like there was a book of choices that we get to choose before we are born. Imagine being in a desert with no food, no water and no people. The only thing you’re surrounded by is the hot sun glaring down at you and the dry sand that burns you when you stand because it is that hot. In order to support d’Holbach’s argument, I can state that your desire is to drink the water because you’re thirsty; however, your action of drinking the water is not free because your thirst mechanism comes out of your control due to biology and how the hypothalamus can trigger your thirst.
He comes up with a concept that free will is an illusion and that it may seem as if we are free, but we’re actually not such as when we are changing our minds. Sometimes we decide and then often change it at the last minute and to humans, it may seem that we are free because we can change whichever decision we made. However, instead what is happening is that one factor is just overriding the original factor. Take the example of yourself in the desert and being thirsty. Normally, when you’re thirsty your desire would be to drink the water, however what if the water was poisoned? Then you would decide not to drink it because your desire to live is stronger than the desire to drink. But the reason why your decision is still not free is because, your desire for self-preservation is an outside factor and out of our control.
In order to make sense of this all, I will give you an example. Let’s take an alcoholic who has a father who’s an alcoholic as well; he has a strong urge to drink a bottle of whiskey but he knows that its bad for his health. D’Holbach would say that the decision he makes on whether to drink the whiskey or not doesn’t make him free because his brain has already been altered to think that drinking every day is okay. His brain deals with biology meaning that the way his brain thinks is out of his control since that is just the way he grew up, which is why he is not free.
On the other hand, compatibilists believe that free will is true and that determinism is true. Susan Wolf defends compatibilism and argues that one is free when their values are determined by sanity and moral responsibility. Wolf learned from Frankfurt that there is a clear distinction from freedom of action and freedom of will. Freedom of action is the freedom to do what one wants to do; freedom of the will is the freedom to want what we want to want. Frankfurt explains that in order to understand what makes us free, we need to understand certain terms: first order desire, second order desire and 2nd order volition. First order desire is a direct desire: “I want X, I don’t want X”; second order of desire is desires about our desires: “I want to want X, I don’t want to want X”; second order volition is when we determine that we want a first order desire to be our will. What Wolf knows from Frankfurt is that moral responsibility requires more than just freedom of action rather it needs the freedom of will; the freedom to govern these desires themselves.
Wolf thinks that, “if we are responsible agents, it is not just because our actions are within the control of our wills, but because … our wills are not just psychological states in us, but expressions of characters that come from us, or that at any rate are acknowledge and affirmed by us” (Wolf, 2). This means that a responsible agent does not act on their desires but rather they possess a “deeper self” who reflects on their desires, shaping them into the type of person they want to be by controlling desires.
For example, Wolf gives an argument for kleptomaniacs and addicts, that they are not responsible for their actions because they, “exemplify individuals whose selves are alienated from their actions” (Wolf, 3). The only way they would be morally responsible is if they were sane and were in the right mindset; kleptomaniacs and addicts are not in the right mindset and do not think in a “normal” way, therefore they are not morally responsible for their actions. The conditions of being sane are simple: 1) one knows what they’re doing and 2) one knows right from wrong. Wolf gives a textual example of Jojo, the son of an evil and sadistic dictator. He begins to murder, torture and kill citizens just like his father has. Wolf states that Jojo is not morally responsible for his actions because he is not sane since Jojo has only been around his father and so his whole view of society is just based off his father’s views. This goes with the alcoholic from the example above as well. Since this alcoholic has only seen his father drink from the beginning, he is not morally responsible for drinking and becoming an alcoholic.
However, what Wolf would argue is that if he knows that drinking every day is not okay and he is critical towards himself, trying to be a better person by going to alternative therapies such as alcohol anonymous meetings or taking medications but yet he still drinks every single day, then he is morally responsible for his actions.
In my opinion, Wolf does an outstanding job in answering whether we’re free or not and that is, she doesn’t necessarily have a real answer. She goes against d’Holbach because she believes that it doesn’t matter about biology. We do not make ourselves, because if we are lucky to determine what is right and wrong within our actions, then it’s not necessary to be created. D’Holbach thinks that ultimately the choice is that we are not free because of the way we were created; however, I like to disagree that it is not easy to come up with a solid answer on whether we are free or not because how do we actually know? It is like asking, “What is life”? D’Holbach would answer, “X is life” while Wolf would state, “Well, we’re not exactly sure what life is but as long as you enjoy it and don’t make any bad decisions then that is all that matters”. Some might argue that there’s no measure as to what being sane is. Wolf would state that although there are conditions to what being sane is, she is not claiming that humans have everything right.
Rather she is suggesting that we simply do our best to do the right action and as long as we know what we have done wrong and fix it, then we are normal. Others might ask that anyone who does wrong but does not realize it means that they are never responsible for their actions, so then is anyone every responsible for their wrongdoing? Because there are very few people that do not know they are doing wrong, so does that mean that they are not “sane”? Wolf argues that it is about the ability to critically correct or improve yourself; it is about being able to step out of your body and ask if the decision you made did harm or good. If you are able to analyze and see the mistake in your action and try to fix it, then you are sane.
In conclusion, both d’Holbach and Wolf give great arguments as to whether a person is actually free when they are making decisions or not. However, I believe that when it comes to a concept that is so in depth and heavy, there is never just one correct answer.
