1.1 Introduction
Freedom is a common term in our everyday vocabulary. But what is it specifically? And how is it connected to our mental health?
This chapter will introduce different freedom-related subjects and shed some light on how they relate to our mental health and psychotherapy.
Section 1.2 starts with what the free will debate is all about. Section 1.3 outlines the main views on free will, such as hard determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism, and so on. Section 1.4 illuminates the controversy of how to understand and define free will. Section 1.5 deals with the arguments that understand free will as the ability to do otherwise. Section 1.6 moves on to the arguments that comprehend free will as the ability to be the source of one’s actions. Section 1.7 explains the implications of the disbelief in free will while Sect. 1.8 brings about the question of what the experience of freedom is. Section 1.9 makes a distinction between free will and freedom of action (negative and positive freedom), whereas Sect. 1.10 demarcates free will and autonomy. Importantly, each section establishes how its topic relates to therapy and mental health.
I will argue, for one, that therapy promotes various types of freedom by default, such as freedom of action, the experience of freedom, autonomy, and even free will (if understood correctly). Moreover, it may be essential to sustain and reinforce the belief in free will (at least a certain kind), as there is evidence that the disbelief in free will is associated with low mental well-being.
1.2 The Meaning of Free Will
One common view is that free will amounts to sufficient control over one’s actions. If we have free will, then it is “up to us” as to how we will, what we choose, and how we act. It certainly “feels” at least sometimes that we have a choice, control, and that we are the authors of our actions. But whether it is actually true has been a bone of contention for two millennia.
Free will is often related to other important notions, such as moral responsibility (desert, blame, punishment, praise, justice), autonomy, originality, creativity, self-worth, and love. One question that is frequently asked is, “How should we change our life if there is no free will?” Would we change our political system if people were not in full control of their behavior? Would we alter our perception of love, if people were simply hard-wired to love someone but not others?
Most often, free will is discussed in relation to moral responsibility. Many believe that free will involves the type of control that is necessary or even sufficient for moral responsibility (McKenna and Pereboom 2016). If people have a sufficient amount of control over their behavior, if their actions are up to them, it appears fair to blame or praise individuals for the choices they decide to make. But if people are bereft of sufficient control over their choices, they do not seem to deserve to be blamed or praised for their behavior (either wrongdoings or achievements). Yet, some deny the link between free will and moral responsibility. One view is that people can be morally responsible even if they do not have free will (Fischer and Ravizza 1998).
Technically, there are two debates: (a) do we have free? and (b) are we morally responsible? (or in what sense can we be responsible?) Though these questions are often interconnected, it is possible to set the discussions apart.
I will focus on free will in Part I and move on to the notion of moral responsibility in Part II.
1.3 Free Will Perspectives
One crucial issue of the debate is whether people can have free will in a deterministic Universe. Causal determinism is a thesis that every event is necessitated by some prior events and laws of nature (Hoefer 2016). Think of the law of cause and effect. Every event is caused by some prior events while those events are caused themselves by some earlier events, and so on to infinity. Human choices, for example, can be said to result from some preceding events such as desires, beliefs, experience, childhood, and so on. In turn, those events have been caused by some prior events and so on. One implication of causal determinism is that there can be only one possible physical outcome. That is, prior events determine only one specific event in the present. This suggests that if determinism is true, the Universe allows only one possible present and only one possible future.
The issue of determinism splits philosophers into numerous conflicting camps concerning free will. There are six main standpoints on free will: hard determinism, hard incompatibilism, compatibilism, libertarianism, revisionism, and illusionism.
Hard determinism is a thesis that determinism is true, free will does not exist, and moral responsibility is unjustified (James 1884; Vilhauer 2004). With regard to determinism, hard determinists believe that the Universe—including human behavior—is governed by the rule of cause and effect. The Universe can be compared to a clockwork mechanism. Once wound up, it moves inevitably in a strict order and one direction. This suggests that it is already determined what should happen in the near or distant future. It is already fixed, for example, what you will do in ten years at 10.34 a.m. on March 23. It is already “written” whether you will marry or not, whether you will divorce, whether you will succeed in your career or not, or whether you will ever travel to Barbados. If we knew all the initial conditions (past causes), it would be possible not only to forecast events but also to report exactly how the future would unwind. With regard to free will, hard determinists normally define free will as the ability to choose otherwise. That is, there should be the ability that could empower people to swerve away from the predetermined course of action. Yet, since the Universe is deterministic, people do not have the ability to do other than what they do. The preceding events and laws of nature necessitate only one course of action. There can be only one possible past, only one possible present, and only one possible future. Since no alternatives are available, hard determinists infer that people do not have free will. By extension, hard determinists infer that people are not morally responsible; that is, they do not deserve to be blamed or praised for their actions. If determinism is true, it was simply preordained that some people would become cruel criminals, while others would become priests, police officers, brilliant inventors, successful entrepreneurs, doctors, or billionaires. Yet, hard determinists tend to agree that criminals can and should be still imprisoned or isolated to prevent their misdeeds and maintain social order.
With the development of quantum mechanics, it became known, however, that the Universe contains both deterministic and indeterministic processes. The very fact that indeterminism exists has issued a serious challenge to hard determinism. Yet, hard determinists can still argue that what science shows is that indeterminacy exists only among subatomic particles, but it does not show that there is any indeterminacy among the developed organisms or large material objects (McKenna and Pereboom 2016). In other words, while indeterminacy might exist at a micro level, there is no evidence that it extends to a macro level. This suggests that human behavior may still remain fully subject to the rule of determinism.
Hard incompatibilism is a view that determinism is false, yet free will still does not exist and moral responsibility is unjustified (Pereboom 2001). Hard incompatibilists concede that there is both determinism and indeterminism in the Universe. Yet, it is argued that neither determinism nor indeterminism makes it possible for people to have free will. The threat of determinism is that it necessitates how people behave. The threat of indeterminism is that it robs people of control over their actions, introducing the existence of chance. Hard incompatibilists tend to define free will as the ability to be the ultimate source of one’s actions. It is argued, however, that people cannot possibly be the ultimate sources of their behavior. It is always possible to find some antecedent causes outside human control, which determine human actions. Hard incompatibilists also argue that society should abandon the belief in free will and moral responsibility. This would primarily entail a reform of the penitentiary system and change common interpersonal relations.
Compatibilism (sometimes also called full compatibilism or soft determinism) is a view that determinism is true, free will exists, and moral responsibility is justified. The premise of compatibilism is that determinism does not threaten free will. Two phenomena can...