Laura Coleman

The Role and Implications of Free Choice Within an Individual

The ability to communicate through language is an innate mechanism, according to Pinker, an automatic impulse that is not taught but rather appears spontaneously in every person.¹ Damasio believes that consciousness is also innate, and that humans inherently possess the ability to know themselves in every action they perform, that it is they and not someone else who is walking, talking, eating, reading, or executing any other action in life.² The mere fact that these aspects of human existence are already formed and present at birth is incredibly significant, for it means that the mind is not a blank slate, but instead that there are preprogrammed pathways and connections in human brains that at the very least ensure that we will speak in some sort of language, understandable or not, and that we will know it is us who is speaking, that the words and thoughts behind them are our own. It is precisely here at which the question of free will enters the picture, assuming that we accept Pinker’s argument about an innate language instinct, convinced by his examples that humans, bound by a fixed set of grammar rules and an essentially consistent set of words, can construct brand-new sentences effortlessly, and that babies, who first speak with unintelligible sounds, soon grow into toddlers who can form grammatically correct sentences without any formal teaching.³ It is also assumed that we put faith in Damasio’s belief of innate consciousness, understanding his breakdown of consciousness into both the simplest core level and the most complex extended level.⁴ Consciousness is a key player in how we react emotionally to different situations, for while it allows us to recognize our own existence, it also allows us to recognize the existence of others, hence the two levels. Accepting the validity of innate capacities for language and consciousness, we must now examine how free will also plays a role in our actions and the implications of the discovery of preexisting innate mechanisms within the brain on society and on the use of free will itself.

Free will has long been heralded as fundamental to civilization, for it is the concept around which our laws, our values, and our lives are patterned. It is assumed that while everyone has the opportunity and the ability to break laws, most will exercise free choice in deciding to stick with the straight-and-narrow path, and those that do not will be appropriately punished for choosing the wrong option. At the same time, it is also assumed that individuals will choose to live a moral lifestyle and act in accordance with society’s values; those who oppose are not punished, but are regarded with contempt and disapproval, for values are not the law. Without the belief in some sort of freedom to choose our actions, society would lose any semblance of control over the population, for any action could be blamed on a predetermined mechanism, and the notion of responsibility for one’s deeds ceases to exist. Discovering that the brain does harbor inherent abilities is the first crack in the foundation of free will upon which society is built; it begs the question of whether other actions, aside from communication and awareness of self and others, are also innate, and if so, how do we continue to promote free will as the deciding factor in determining who is considered a law-abiding citizen and who sits in jail when there might actually be a predetermined neurological apparatus for someone’s illegal action.⁵

It seems that we are already on our way to shifting responsibility from ourselves to the brain, as evidenced in our attribution of certain characteristics and effects to various chemicals, like testosterone.⁶ Though this chemical has traditionally been described as the essential ingredient of manliness and masculinity, it is sometimes forgotten that females also possess this hormone in their chemical make-up, albeit it in a much smaller quantity. The difference between males and females, therefore, is accordingly as great. This is not new information, for it is generally not hard to tell a tall, strapping man from a more petite, curvier woman. Men are known to be stronger, more competitive, more aggressive, and have higher sexual drives than women, and these differences can be traced to testosterone.⁷ However, there is an enormous distinction between the effects of a drug on a person and his or her corresponding effects on society. Although testosterone and aggression may be directly related, the idea of free will mandates that an individual control his aggression, even though he has no control over its heightened state. Perhaps the most important aspect of free will is acknowledging that biology is not a staunch supporter of the concept. Human biology creates emotions, feelings, and even actions that are incredibly difficult, if not impossible, in the case of a language instinct, to avoid acting on. Every parent awaits the moment when their baby will utter its first words, for they know that this moment is inevitable (excluding certain abnormal cases, such as autism.) Teenage boys will also testify to the power of biologic urges, as nature’s wish for life to continue through the spreading of seed between sexes seems to resonate most powerfully with this age group. Biology plays by its own rules, but to eliminate freedom of choice is actually counterproductive to biology’s goal, which overall, is to maintain life.

As stated earlier, free will is the backbone of the world’s legal system, which coincidentally shares the same goal as biology, to keep its population alive and prosperous. However, since the world does not have chemicals and hormones at its ready disposal to inject into every member of the population, it must rely on a different method: yes, you guessed it, free will. So while biology and free will might seem to be enemies, each work for the same higher purpose, only through different methods. Biology would have men engage in sexual relations with every female they see, resulting in billions of babies and therefore guaranteeing a new generation of life and continuing the process of evolution. Free will, though, specifies that men control this sexual urge and instead procreate only with consenting women, infinitely reducing the potential number of babies born, but resulting in a new generation nonetheless. If a man gives in to this reproductive urge, he is promptly jailed for rape. On the other hand, increased competitiveness and aggressiveness among males has potential detrimental effects for biology; if left to run amok, overly aggressive males might fight with anyone they saw as a threat to their superiority, which could lead to a high death rate and a smaller population. But free will rushes to biology’s rescue, as it again mandates control over these aggressive feelings, thereby maintaining peace among the masses and keeping the population level at a higher rate. To further clarify the relationship between free will and biology, they not only are not enemies, but in effect, they cannot exist without each other. Should biology become overzealous and shortsighted in its quest to continue the evolutionary process, free will tries its best to compensate, promoting control over biologic impulses; while this does slow the process of procreation, it helps it along nevertheless. Also, if procreation were allowed to happen at the rapid rate that it would if biology were king, the population would grow so large in such a short time that progress and technology would most likely not be able to keep up, and the Earth, already of finite size, would quickly become overwhelmed. Yet again, the best effort at preserving humanity and ensuring future generations appears to be living both with biology and free will, using one to keep the other in balance.

To accept that both biology and free will can coexist is to leave open the door for possible future discoveries of neurological innate mechanisms without the need to rebuild society with each discovery. Without free will, our lifestyles as we know them today would not be possible. However, continually improving technology explores territories today that once we thought never possible, like the brain, and this exploration is almost certain to yield results that in some way conflict with current beliefs.⁸ It is always a possibility that new knowledge of inherent neurological abilities could bring about a revolution within society, forcing civilizations to create new laws, new values, or anything else that in some way pertain to the concept of free will, but by accepting biology’s enormously important and permanent role in human behavior ahead of time, we can make adjustments to our notion of free will without having to disregard it completely.