Originally Posted by
Ecurb
We define words as we see fit, because we see the world in our own (possibly flawed and idiosyncratic) way. To the prisoner, being “free” means being unconfined by locked bars. To the married polyamorist, it means being unconfined by marriage vows. To the lawyer, it means an action unconstrained by other people either physically or through the threat of force.
In none of these standard uses of “free” is it relevant that sub-atomic particles reacting to one another in our brains can be said to “cause” our behaviors.
Unless we want to conclude that choosing to murder someone is as constrained by circumstance as failing to rescue a drowning man because you are handcuffed to a bike rack, we are forced to conclude that our normal use of the word “free” (as in “free will”) has little to do with sub-atomic physics.
The extent to which the laws of physics “cause” everything that happens is irrelevant to the “freedom” or lack of “freedom” of most of these behaviors. The prisoner remains less “free” than the man living in his own home; the murderer remains responsible for his choice; the man handcuffed to the bike rack is less culpable for failing to rescue the drowning man than the one who is not handcuffed.
Of course it is also true that none of us can choose to do other than what we do. We can say, “Joe CHOSE to murder his wife.” But once the murder is committed, there is no other possible “choice”. Nonetheless, the concept of “free will” is still relevant. No choice other than murder can be made – but we can imagine a different choice, and moral judgments (what “should” occur) are always a matter for the imagination.