Is free will considered a human right?

[Unity+]

We consider humans to have the ability to make decisions on an individual basis -- the property of free will. The question is whether it is considered a human right.

 

In the U.S., a person can commit a crime and have certain rights taken away because of this. If a person commits a n atrocious crime and has no ability to leave prison or is facing the death penalty, should their right of free will be taken away?

[ajb]

Free will is only the ability to make choices, given whatever information the individual has at hand. This is not a 'human right' but a biological fact.

 

This is slightly different to acting upon these choices. This is where morality and the law come into play.

[Unity+]

Free will is only the ability to make choices, given whatever information the individual has at hand. This is not a 'human right' but a biological fact.

 

This is slightly different to acting upon these choices. This is where morality and the law come into play.

But let's say someone develops a hypothetical "mind control" device, where free will becomes nullified because you are ultimately under the control of that device. Would free will then become as such?

[iNow]

It might benefit you to first recognize that most current research into the mind seems to have already nullified free will.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

[Phi for All]

In the U.S., a person can commit a crime and have certain rights taken away because of this. If a person commits a n atrocious crime and has no ability to leave prison or is facing the death penalty, should their right of free will be taken away?

 

Free will is a bit of a misnomer, when you think about it. Even the above prisoner has some decisions to make, some ways in which his will can influence a choice. He's free to choose whether to nap or talk or play cards, or any one of a limited but not non-existent list of things he/she can do.

 

There really is no completely free will, you can't do *anything* you feel like doing at any time, so what kind of freedom are we talking about? I have a much broader range of things I can do since I'm not imprisoned, but I don't have the freedom to do *anything* my will can envision.

 

But let's say someone develops a hypothetical "mind control" device, where free will becomes nullified because you are ultimately under the control of that device. Would free will then become as such?

 

It seems like free will is determined by degree no matter how you look at it. I'm free to walk downtown, but I'm not free to walk into the Federal Center without clearance. If I did anyway, and got thrown in prison, I'd be free to walk around the exercise yard and talk to anybody I wanted. If I did, I'd get into a fight with one group or another and end up in solitary confinement. Even there, I have choices I can make, but do I have still have free will? Where exactly did I lose it? Was it ever there to begin with?

 

Is free will completely free will, or some limited version thereof, determined by... who?

 

I would say that a device that controlled your choices would completely negate any free will you might have, if our will is ever completely free.

[Unity+]

 

Free will is a bit of a misnomer, when you think about it. Even the above prisoner has some decisions to make, some ways in which his will can influence a choice. He's free to choose whether to nap or talk or play cards, or any one of a limited but not non-existent list of things he/she can do.

 

There really is no completely free will, you can't do *anything* you feel like doing at any time, so what kind of freedom are we talking about? I have a much broader range of things I can do since I'm not imprisoned, but I don't have the freedom to do *anything* my will can envision.

 

 

It seems like free will is determined by degree no matter how you look at it. I'm free to walk downtown, but I'm not free to walk into the Federal Center without clearance. If I did anyway, and got thrown in prison, I'd be free to walk around the exercise yard and talk to anybody I wanted. If I did, I'd get into a fight with one group or another and end up in solitary confinement. Even there, I have choices I can make, but do I have still have free will? Where exactly did I lose it? Was it ever there to begin with?

 

Is free will completely free will, or some limited version thereof, determined by... who?

 

I would say that a device that controlled your choices would completely negate any free will you might have, if our will is ever completely free.

Well, from a legal standpoint, a person is responsible for the decisions they make at the moment, i.e. do I kill a person or let them live, do I give or take from the.

 

I would agree that it would take a discrete definition in order to make such a decision. So, the best answer I can give is free will that is determined by the person's ability to make an individual decision without force by a third party(exceptions include indirect influence of interaction between people).

[Acme]

Free will is nothing more or less than a philosophical football. If you believe in free will then I chose to write this and if you don't believe in free will then I was destined to write it.

[Roamer]

But let's say someone develops a hypothetical "mind control" device, where free will becomes nullified because you are ultimately under the control of that device. Would free will then become as such?

 

What makes you think we don't have things like this yet ?

Social interaction means different minds have a need to come to a unified perspective, this happens in many way, conversation, discussion, propaganda, schooling, banning of a particular teaching/book.

There are plenty of people with little to no free will of their own out there, who will instinctively take orders without question.

[Bill Angel]

The issue of free will is also linked to how one perceives things. In a confrontation with another individual, one might perceive that other individual as a threat, or one might perceive that other individual as simply acting obnoxious. The decision of how one might respond to the situation would depend upon which of those perceptions is at that moment the dominant one.

If one perceives the individual as a threat one might shoot him. If one perceives him as simply being obnoxious, one might just walk away from the confrontation.

[Unity+]

I think all points in this thread are quite founded in how we perceive free will, and I think that can be discussed quite in depth. However, let us assume the concept of free-will does exist.

 

EDIT: Though I would like to bring up the point that if free-will does not exist, then law itself is completely pointless because one's determination of being in violation of those laws is determined solely by destiny. Law's assumption is that an individual has the capability to make a decision. The definition of justice would be completely pointless because justice is also under the definition that one is able to make individualistic and conscious decisions. Whether justice exists is a philosophical debate, but I think the assumption is that free-will exists in the question.

 

What makes you think we don't have things like this yet ?

Social interaction means different minds have a need to come to a unified perspective, this happens in many way, conversation, discussion, propaganda, schooling, banning of a particular teaching/book.

There are plenty of people with little to no free will of their own out there, who will instinctively take orders without question.

That is a valid point, but I think many of these things are due to the absence of information rather than complete control.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Unity+

[iNow]

EDIT: Though I would like to bring up the point that if free-will does not exist, then law itself is completely pointless because one's determination of being in violation of those laws is determined solely by destiny.

This is a good point, and one that comes up often during modern neuroscience of free will discussions, but it is one IMO that is easily addressed. We merely need to reform our thinking and consider law to be a system intended for risk management, one that is focused more on crime prevention and rehabilitation than on punishment of choices deemed immoral by society. It still makes sense in that context.

.

With that said, can you clarify what you mean by having someone's "right of free will taken away?"

[Unity+]

This is a good point, and one that comes up often during modern neuroscience of free will discussions, but it is one IMO that is easily addressed. We merely need to reform our thinking and consider law to be a system intended for risk management, one that is focused more on crime prevention and rehabilitation than on punishment of choices deemed immoral by society. It still makes sense in that context.

.

With that said, can you clarify what you mean by having someone's "right of free will taken away?"

Basically, the right to make your own decisions, but instead of enforcing it through influence, have it influenced with actual control of their human mind, or being able to control exactly what they do.

[MigL]

I don't see how your 'reforms' change anything, iNow.

In the absence of 'free will', you are NOT responsible for your actions or decisions.

They, then, warrant neither punishment, nor can the decision making process be rehabilitated or prevented.

Our whole penal system is a sham, and I'm going to use that defense if I ever murder anyone, and you, as an expert witness.

( yes, I'm being sarcastic because I believe in free will on scientific grounds, not philosophical ones )

[iNow]

Oh, wow. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. In a lot of ways, we used to already do this to prisoners through use of the prefrontal lobotomy, but I'm of the opinion that this particular "treatment" is likely to be in most cases far worse than the actual crime.

 

Granted, I acknowledge you're arguing for something different, but practically speaking the process and outcome (were such a thing implemented) would be greatly similar in reality. You also get into pretty dubious ethical territory when it comes to who decides what/when/where/how to do such a thing and how the process is governed and controlled.

 

A big if a dated article, but Mo at the following link goes far deeper and more accurately into existing history of lobotomies than I could: http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/07/24/inventing-the-lobotomy/

 

Finally, a bit of levity:

 

Our whole penal system is a sham

Unless you use it as a means to minimize harm, reduce risk to others, and stop treating it as a system of punishment or morality enforcement.

[MigL]

I don't think you understood my meaning.

Without free will you cannot be held responsible for decisions or actions so you cannot be prosecuted for those actions.

Who said anything about lobotomies ?

Please re-read my post.

[iNow]

I understood you fine. My reply was that prosecutions can continue to stand without issue and our system largely maintained in its current form if you treat criminal justice in terms of risk reduction and public safety instead of in terms of punishment and personal accountability.

 

My response about our history of giving prefrontal lobotomies to prisoners was intended for Unity+. We cross-posted there. My apologies for the confusion. That was not directed to you, only the portion after the quote which merged with me previous post.

[Roamer]

That is a valid point, but I think many of these things are due to the absence of information rather than complete control.

 

Or, often the lack of free will is caused by absence-of-information ?

[fiveworlds]

Or, often the lack of free will is caused by absence-of-information ?

 

Or that you don't have a choice. For instance atheist children are refused access to school here if they are not baptized or are not a member of another religion. The state says that the moral behind this is that the school will only allow access to so many children with preference being given to children of the same religion as the school.

[MigL]

But that is not free will, is it Fiveworlds ?

Everyone has free will and can choose to go to any school they want.

Whether they are allowed to or not, i.e. the freedom to act as they will, is a totally different matter.

 

We had a member on here a few weeks ago who wanted to destroy the world. He had decided he wanted to do this.

Do you think he'll be able or allowed to ?

 

Freedom of thought is a fundamental human right ( whatever that means ). You can think whatever you want.

For everything else, there are laws and social norms that determine what we can and can't do.

You can't even voice your thoughts indiscriminately, as there are speech laws.

[fiveworlds]

But that is not free will, is it Fiveworlds ?

Everyone has free will and can choose to go to any school they want.

 

 

I have never claimed I had free will. I am merely stating that if I want my children to go to school then the schools are more likely to allow my child into school if my child follows the right religion. That if my child is atheist or is not baptized then there is a large chance that my child will be refused a place in a school. Nobody gets to choose any school they want we don't have the right to choose. We follow a system and we do what the system tells us to do or we suffer the consequences. The consequences could be that my child has to attend school or social services will take my child away. If I don't put my child in a religion the schools won't accept my child therefore social services will take my child because I have neglected my responsibilities as a parent.

Edited August 31, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

To extrapolate a bit on what iNow has said our conscious minds are still a bit of a mystery. Many emotional and mental processes are performed automatically. It is unclear to me whether or not our conscious minds make decisions or merely executes them.

A very simply experiment to perform is to sit in chair with no conscious intention of doing anything other than observing yourself. Don't try to sit still don't try to do anthing. Just sit, relax, and observe. With in minutes if not moments you will notice yourself perfoming tasks you did not consciously command. Things like adjusting yourself in your seat, turning you head, focusing your eyes on specific things in the room, or etc. I know some people who have done this simple self obersvation experiment before and observed themselves get up and walk into other rooms before ending the experiment.

 

@ MigL, the enforcement of law can be done to ensure community safety. It doesn't have to be about punishment. Whether consciously in control of their actions or not violent people are a threat to community safety. Removing violent people can be done to ensure they do not hurt others. It doesn't have to be done as a means of retribution.