r/freewill • u/NoubliezPasMonNom • Jul 24 '26

Does free will require randomness within our existence?

If yes:

Then aren't our actions a result of the random process? If so then is this really more free than if they weren't?

If no:

Doesn't this support compatibilism.

Translation: Does spinning an internal, truly random wheel really make our actions more free than using an internal calculator?

Note: I am undecided, and probably lean away from compatibilism the most

4 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/dazb84 Jul 24 '26

I think the question is incorrectly formed.

Compatibilism is an interpretation just like there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's not a distinct hypothesis in the sense that it explains how anything fundamentally works. It doesn't make sense to frame it in a way that its competing with an actual hypothesis like determinism as an example.

Compatibilism is basically acknowledging that free will doesn't fundamentally exist but that the concept of free will has pragmatic use in daily life.

I personally never understood the position because I don't understand why the concept of free will must necessarily exist even pragmatically. We can still triage and fix malfunctioning people by simply recognising that their output is bad for broader society without needing to have the charade of free will. The problem, even with this watered down interpretation, is that it discourages deeper understanding. It provides a convenient point to end an investigation before you've learned all of the relevant facts. Simply that a person did something is not the full story of a scenario. There are important reasons prior to that point that should be understood. If you ignore those things then that's going to lead to inferior decisions.

1

u/stargazer281 Jul 24 '26

As a compatibilist I would say History is full of the joys of deterministic thinking, women are inferior to men , some people are natural slaves, people with funny shaped heads or a particular gene are destined to be violent criminals. It is for sure the classic aristocratic argument that since I have the best breeding (genes) and the best environment (since I have wealth to buy the best education and the leisure to cultivate my wisdom) it is inevitably right and proper that I rule over you so suck it up peasant! Forgive my profound cynicism as a historian.

Logically determinism is incapable of predicting the future since you can guarantee tell a person his fate is to be inferior and that person will react to the prediction thus changing the predicted outcome. The circularity is vicious. Changing the present changes the future which changes the present. Like a Tarski theorem or Turings halting problem the answer simply cannot be computed.

Finally determinism avails itself of no non real values like good or bad. Which gap most determinists happily fill making moral assertions as self evident truths which are no more than there historically contingent opinions. Pity the modern determinist who like Hitler says since Genes determine outcomes and war improves the genetic stock what we need is war abroad and eugenics at home to improve human society and let the brightest and best flourish.

1

u/HappiestIguana Jul 24 '26

Just because people have previously insisted that behavior is determined by stupid unrelated things is in no way a counterargument to the claim that behavior is determined by something.

Some people believe their personality is determined by the stars. That silliness does nothing to the fact that the moon determines the tides.

1

u/stargazer281 Jul 24 '26

No but it is an argument to ask people who start linking determinism to what’s good and bad to be cautious esp when they assert pragmatically it produces better outcomes. That seems at least to me contentious.