Compatibilism: Crash Course Philosophy #25

Summary

This Crash Course Philosophy episode explores the concept of free will through the lens of compatibilism, which reconciles determinism with the idea of free actions determined internally. It discusses the implications of a brain tumor case on moral responsibility and introduces Frankfurt Cases, challenging the necessity of alternate possibilities for free will. The episode also touches on Patricia Churchland's view on the degree of freedom in actions based on可控性, suggesting that moral responsibility is tied to the level of control one has over their actions.

Takeaways

• 🧠 A man's pedophilic impulses were linked to a brain tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, which controls sexual impulse.
• 🤔 The case raises questions about free will versus determinism in behavior, especially when influenced by medical conditions.
• 🔄 Compatibilism (soft determinism) suggests that actions can be considered free if determined by internal factors, even in a deterministic universe.
• 💡 The analogy of being pushed vs. jumping off a diving board illustrates the compatibilist view on the source of action determination.
• 🤷‍♂️ Compatibilism acknowledges moral responsibility for self-determined actions, a concept that hard determinism seems to negate.
• 🧪 The man with the brain tumor scenario challenges the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which states that free actions require the ability to do otherwise.
• 🗳️ Frankfurt Cases, like the Democratic voter with a hypothetical brain device, argue for moral responsibility despite a lack of alternate possibilities.
• 🤝 Patricia Churchland proposes that 'how much control' over actions is more relevant than the binary question of free will.
• 🧪 She suggests that our brains can be trained to develop control, implying that freedom can be increased through personal development.
• 🍻 The script discusses how factors like alcohol consumption and social pressure complicate the distinction between internal and external influences on actions.
• 🔧 Libertarians argue that all actions are determined and thus not truly free, challenging the compatibilist and Churchland's viewpoints.

Q & A

What is the main philosophical question raised by the story of the man with the brain tumor?

The main philosophical question is whether the man's behavior was a matter of free will or determined by a medical condition, specifically the tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex.

What are the two metaphysical positions discussed in the script regarding the freedom of our actions?

The two metaphysical positions discussed are hard determinism and libertarian free will.

What is compatibilism and how does it differ from hard determinism and libertarian free will?

Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the belief that while the universe operates with law-like order and the past determines the future, some human actions can still be considered free, particularly when the determination comes from within ourselves.

How does the analogy of being pushed off a diving board versus jumping illustrate the compatibilist view?

The analogy illustrates that both actions result in the same outcome (ending up in the water), but the cause is different. Compatibilists argue that even though the action is determined, if it is self-determined, it can be considered free.

What is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities and how does it relate to the concept of free will?

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the belief that for an action to be free, an agent must have been able to do something other than what they did. It challenges the compatibilist view by suggesting that without alternate possibilities, actions cannot be considered free.

Who is Harry Frankfurt and what is his argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities?

Harry Frankfurt is a contemporary American philosopher who argues that an agent can be morally responsible for their actions even when they couldn't have done otherwise, challenging the necessity of alternate possibilities for free will.

What is a Frankfurt Case and how does it challenge our understanding of free will?

A Frankfurt Case is a hypothetical situation where an agent appears to act freely but is actually being manipulated or controlled in some way. It challenges the understanding of free will by suggesting that moral responsibility can exist even without the possibility of alternate actions.

How does Patricia Churchland's view on free will differ from compatibilism?

Patricia Churchland rejects the dichotomy of free or not free and instead focuses on the amount of control an individual has over their actions. She suggests that the more control we have, the more responsibility we also have.

What does Churchland suggest is the wrong question to ask regarding free will?

Churchland suggests that asking 'Am I free?' is the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking 'How much control do I have?'

How does the script relate the concept of free will to our brain's ability to control behavior?

The script suggests that disturbances in the brain, such as tumors, can undermine our control, but also that our brains can be trained to develop control over behavior, implying that the feeling of freedom is related to the level of control we have over our actions.

What is the significance of the Squarespace advertisement in the context of the script?

The Squarespace advertisement serves as a sponsor message and is not directly related to the philosophical content of the script. It is included to support the production of the Crash Course series.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Brain Tumors and Free Will

The script begins with a case study of a man who developed pedophilic impulses due to a brain tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, which controls sexual impulse. The tumor's removal led to a cessation of these impulses, but they returned when the tumor reappeared. This raises the question of whether the man's actions were a result of free will or determined by a medical condition. The paragraph explores the concept of compatibilism, which suggests that while the universe operates with law-like order and the past determines the future, some human actions are still considered free if they are self-determined. It contrasts this with hard determinism and libertarian free will, and introduces the idea that moral responsibility might still exist even if our actions are determined by internal factors.

05:03

🤔 The Complexity of Moral Responsibility

The second paragraph delves into the implications of compatibilism, questioning the extent to which we can be held morally responsible for actions that are determined by internal factors, such as brain tumors or mental illnesses. It also considers more common scenarios like the influence of alcohol on behavior and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which posits that for an action to be free, an agent must have been able to do otherwise. The paragraph introduces Frankfurt Cases, which challenge this principle by suggesting that one can be morally responsible for an action even if they couldn't have done otherwise, as long as the action aligns with their desires. The script then discusses Patricia Churchland's perspective, which focuses on the degree of control one has over their actions rather than the binary question of free will, suggesting that our level of responsibility is tied to the amount of control we exert.

Keywords

💡Orbitofrontal Cortex

The orbitofrontal cortex is a region of the brain associated with decision-making and impulse control, particularly related to sexual behavior as highlighted in the video. The man with the tumor in this area experienced a drastic change in his sexual behavior, suggesting a strong link between this part of the brain and sexual impulses. The video uses this example to question whether actions stemming from such brain functions are a matter of free will or determined by biological factors.

💡Free Will

Free will is the power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will. The video explores this concept through the lens of a man whose actions seemed to be influenced by a brain tumor, raising the question of whether his behavior was a product of free will or determined by a medical condition.

💡Determinism

Determinism is the philosophical notion that all events, including moral choices, are determined by previously existing causes. The video discusses hard determinism and compatibilism, contrasting them with libertarian free will. Determinism is central to the debate on whether our actions are truly our own or the result of a chain of causes and effects.

💡Libertarian Free Will

Libertarian free will is the idea that individuals have the power to act in ways that are not determined by prior causes. The video mentions this concept as one of the metaphysical positions on the nature of actions, suggesting that if our actions are not free, then we might not be morally responsible for them.

💡Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the belief that determinism is compatible with free will. The video explains this by likening actions to jumping into water, either by being pushed or by choice, suggesting that even in a deterministic universe, actions can be considered free if they originate from internal motivations.

💡Moral Responsibility

Moral responsibility refers to the capacity to be held accountable for one's actions from a moral standpoint. The video questions whether the man with the brain tumor, whose actions were potentially caused by a medical condition, can be held morally responsible, thus challenging the viewer to consider the nature of responsibility in the context of free will.

💡Pedophilia

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The video uses a case of a man with a brain tumor that seemingly caused pedophilic impulses to illustrate the complex interplay between biological factors and moral behavior.

💡Internal Factors

Internal factors are elements within an individual that influence their actions or decisions. The video discusses how compatibilists argue that actions can be considered free if they are determined by internal factors, even within a deterministic framework. It uses examples like alcohol influence and mental illness to explore this concept.

💡External Factors

External factors are influences outside of an individual that affect their behavior. The video contrasts these with internal factors, using the example of friends pressuring someone to get high, which is an external factor, versus the internal desire to conform, to discuss the complexity of determining the source of actions.

💡Frankfurt Cases

Frankfurt Cases are hypothetical scenarios that challenge the Principle of Alternate Possibilities by suggesting that moral responsibility is not dependent on the ability to do otherwise. The video presents a scenario involving a device that could force a person to vote a certain way, but only if they intended to vote differently, to explore this concept.

💡Patricia Churchland

Patricia Churchland is a philosopher mentioned in the video who rejects the binary view of free will and instead focuses on the degree of control one has over their actions. Her view suggests that responsibility is proportional to the level of control an individual has, which can vary based on both internal and external influences.

Highlights

A man with a brain tumor experienced a sudden change in sexual behavior, including pedophilia.

The tumor was located in the orbitofrontal cortex, which controls sexual impulse.

After the tumor's removal, the man's pedophilic impulses disappeared.

The return of the tumor coincided with the return of the man's pedophilic behavior.

Compatibilism, or soft determinism, is introduced as a middle ground between hard determinism and libertarian free will.

Compatibilists argue that actions can be free if determined by internal causes, even in a deterministic universe.

The difference between being pushed and jumping illustrates the compatibilist view on free actions.

Compatibilism suggests we can have moral responsibility for self-determined actions.

The man with the brain tumor raises questions about the compatibility of free will and determinism.

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is discussed, which states that for an action to be free, an agent must have been able to do otherwise.

Harry Frankfurt challenges the Principle of Alternate Possibilities with his concept of Frankfurt Cases.

A hypothetical scenario involving brain devices that control voting behavior is used to explore moral responsibility.

Frankfurt argues that one can be morally responsible for an action even if they couldn't have done otherwise.

The concept that responsibility comes from actions chosen internally is explored.

Patricia Churchland suggests that the question of free will might be better framed as 'How much control do I have?'

Churchland's view implies that the more control we have over our actions, the more responsibility we hold.

The episode concludes by discussing how we can develop control over our actions, even in a deterministic world.

The episode is sponsored by Squarespace, which offers website creation tools for various platforms.

Transcripts

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Let me tell you a story that is disturbing, but true.

In the year 2000, a 40 year old man was arrested for possessing child pornography, and molesting his 8 year old stepdaughter.

The man had no previous history of pedophilia, and he said that he was baffled and dismayed by what appeared to be a sudden turn in his sexual behavior.

While he was awaiting his day in court, the man began to complain of terrible headaches.

A brain scan revealed a large tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain known to control sexual impulse.

The tumor was removed, and, it turned out, so were his pedophilic impulses.

But about a year later, those impulses returned.

Another scan revealed that the tumor had returned as well.

So, a second surgery removed the tumor, and the pedophilic behavior diminished, this time for good.

Now, here’s a question: Was that man’s really horrible behavior a matter of free will?

Or was it determined – by what turned out to be a medical condition?

Or was it neither?

Could it even have been both?

[Theme Music]

So far we’ve considered two metaphysical positions regarding the freeness – or not

– of our actions: hard determinism and libertarian free will.

If you’ve found both of them to be wanting, well, compatibilism might just be for you.

Compatibilists believe, somewhat like hard determinists, that the universe operates with

law-like order, and that the past determines the future.

But they also think there’s something different about some human actions;

that some of the actions we take really are free.

This view, known as soft determinism, says that everything is actually determined,

but we can still call an action free when the determination comes from within ourselves.

It’s like the difference between someone being pushed off a diving board, as opposed to jumping.

The result is the same – you end up in the water – but it does look like the cause is different.

In case 1, the cause is the pusher, while in case 2, the cause is the jumper.

Compatibilists say that in both cases, the action is determined – that is, it couldn’t not happen.

But when the action of an agent is self-determined – or determined by causes internal to herself – the action should be considered free.

This means that we might have moral responsibility for our actions,

since the determination for some of our acts can come from us alone.

And this was something, you’ll recall, that hard determinists seemed to have to give up.

But, it’s unclear how meaningful moral responsibility really is, in this view.

After all, if we’re still determined, just by our own internal factors, then in what sense are we actually responsible?

Which brings us back to the man with the brain tumor.

If a growth in your brain, which you have no control over, causes you to have impulses

that you also have no control over – do you act freely if you act on those urges?

Pedophilia-inducing brain tumors are, luckily, rare, but there are much more common cases that are similar.

For example, should we hold people who suffer from severe mental illnesses responsible for their actions?

After all, the causes of their actions are internal to themselves.

So a compatibilist might be inclined to say that they’re free.

Yet it seems wrong to blame someone who’s in the grip of, say, hallucinations in the same way that we’d blame someone who’s not.

What about someone who becomes flirty after a few drinks?

Do we assign that behavior to the drinker, or on the drinks?

The drinker’s actions are caused by factors internal to themself – the alcohol, sure,

but also their body chemistry, how much they ate before drinking, and who knows how many other factors.

Last time, we learned about the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, and the long-standing

belief that, in order for an action to be free, an agent has to have been able to do something other than what they’ve done.

But contemporary American philosopher Harry Frankfurt challenges this idea, by arguing

that an agent could, in some cases, be morally responsible for things he does, even when he couldn’t have done otherwise.

We call these situations Frankfurt Cases,

which brings us to the Thought Bubble to explore one in this week’s Flash Philosophy.

Suppose there’s a fervent supporter of the Democratic party, and he comes up with a crazy

plan to make sure his party wins in the next election.

He decides to abduct voters and plant devices in their brains –

– something that, as far as I know, neither party has tried yet!

Now, these devices are designed to remain dormant unless a voter is going to vote Republican,

in which case it’ll activate, and compel them to vote Democratic.

Now, suppose that you were one of the unlucky abductees, and you head to the polls with a device in your brain.

But, you’ve always been a lifelong Democrat, and device or no device, you have every intention of voting Democratic this time.

You enter the polling booth, vote a straight Democratic ticket, and head home.

Since you never had any intention of doing anything other than voting Democratic, the device was never activated.

However, if you had decided to vote Republican, you would have been prevented from doing so.

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities says you were not free in this case, because you couldn’t have done otherwise.

Even if you’d tried to vote Republican you would still have voted for Democrats.

But, Frankfurt argues: You were still clearly responsible for your vote.

You were responsible, because you did what you wanted to do, even though you could not have done otherwise.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. So what do you think?

Not about the next election – I mean, can you be responsible without being able to do otherwise?

If you wanted to watch Crash Course, and would’ve watched it on your own,

but now it’s playing in class and you don’t actually have any choice, are you watching me freely?

Frankfurt Cases play on an intuition that many of us share – the idea that you’re responsible for actions you’ve chosen.

And your choice needs to come from within yourself, rather than from outside factors.

But it’s unclear whether we can actually separate internal factors from external ones.

A group of friends pressuring you to get high is an external factor,

but your desire to conform, or maybe your desire not to care what others think of you, comes from within you.

Or does it?

Isn’t your personality – and how you respond to different situations – shaped by your parents, and friends, and earlier experiences?

Many think these kinds of examples reveal deep problems with compatibilism.

If we can’t separate internal and external causes, maybe the answer is to simply say that actions are “more or less free.”

And how free they are depends on how many internal factors are influencing us,

and how many external, and how much control we really have over what we do.

This is the view taken by contemporary Canadian-American philosopher Patricia Churchland.

Churchland points out that, as social animals, we can’t help but hold people accountable, and assign either praise or blame for their actions.

But it also makes sense to think about how much, or how little, someone is in control of their actions, when assigning praise or blame.

After all, some actions are beyond our control, like sneezing.

So I won’t blame you for sneezing, because you can’t really control that.

But I definitely will blame you for sneezing on my lunch, because you do have control over where you sneeze.

Likewise, I might blame you less for rude behavior when you’ve been drinking, as opposed to when you’re sober,

but I probably won’t let you completely off the hook, because, at least under normal circumstances, you had control over your decision to drink.

So, Churchland says, asking “Am I free?” is really the wrong question.

Instead, we should be asking, “How much control do I have?”

And the more control we have, the more responsibility we also have.

This view lets us keep what we know about the deterministic nature of the universe,

while also making sense of our subjective feeling of freedom.

So really, “feeling free” really just means “having control”

We know disturbances in the brain can undermine our control, from seizures and tics to the pedophilic impulses that developed in the brain tumor patient.

But we also know that our brains can be trained to develop control over many aspects of our behavior.

Like the way you used to just pee whenever your bladder was full, but now you’re able to control when and where you pee.

Congratulations on that, by the way.

But this means that we can choose to develop stronger levels of control over many of our actions,

which is what we do when we work to break a bad habit, or ingrain a good one.

Now, libertarians will point out that being caused to do something by internal factors still keeps our actions from being truly free.

These folks won’t be satisfied with Churchland’s answer, because it says that every one of our choices is still determined by something.

So we can’t ever make an undetermined choice.

But today, whether determined or not, we talked about compatibilism.

We considered whether our internally motivated actions can be understood as free in a deterministic world.

We also talked about Frankfurt Cases.

And we looked at Patricia Churchland’s rejection of the free-or-not-free dichotomy and her

focus on the amount of control we have over our actions.

Next time we’re going to move into a new unit, on the philosophy of language.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and your ideas.

Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required.

Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like

PBS Game / Show, The Good Stuff, and Gross Science.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.