Free Will

One of those big sticklers in philosophy has always been free will. Free will is the idea that we are in control of our own actions, but quite a few philosophers have been arguing, for a while now at least, that free will is actually an illusion.

An article in this week's economist argues that they may well be right. Though free will has certainly not disappeared yet, it has been shrinking as it has become clearer and clearer that chemical effects have an impact on the brain.

Without free will we suddenly have a problem. Free will is an essential part of justice, in that we feel we can't hold a person responsible for their actions if they cannot be held responsible for them, as well as in everything from democracy to economics. The debates is already on in a few fields, such as sexuality (which is most probably genetic and therefore not in the realm of free will, meaning it can't be held against the individual)

But what will it mean for our species if we realise that paedophilia is a chemical imbalance? Can we then still blame the paedophile? Or what if we have a genetic disposition for religiosity? Then the religious can't blame the doubters, nor the doubters the religious.


When there is no free will, how can anybody be held responsible for their actions?