ARE WE THE AUTHORS OF OUR OWN THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS? By: Martins Hile

Image by ybnormalman via Flickr

In his recent book, “Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values”, Neuroscientist, Sam Harris discusses how science can provide the basis for morality. This piece is not a review of Harris’ diatribe on organized religion and his lengthy thesis on the science of morality. My focus here is to tease out a particular bold argument he makes that we are not authors of our thoughts and actions. He goes as far as to debunk the popular concept of the human “free will”. According to Dr. Harris, the notion of free will has no basis from a scientific and philosophical point of view.

The author is not alone in challenging this metaphysical concept that is at the core of much of human and religious thinking. David Eagleman, a Neuroscientist at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, asks a thought-provoking question: “How much of our lives are determined by choices and behaviors that are hard-wired, unconscious, and beyond our control?”

Let us take a closer look at these issues before denouncing them as the psychobabble of godless scientists. Stemming from this debate, let us ask ourselves certain questions: Why does one individual react differently from another when confronted with the same set of circumstances? Why do we dispense dissimilar degrees of empathy? Are these divergent reactions determined by individual free will, hence a function of conscious decisions? Or are these reactions subjective and, in some cases, beyond our control?

Socialization plays a big role in the architecture of our consciousness in a way we are unaware of. Our individual experiences – from childhood to adulthood – constitute the building blocks of our consciousness. Our values and behaviours to a very large extent are influenced by biological and socio-ecological factors. For instance, it is near-impossible for a young man who suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child to be inherently compassionate. The point here is that in circumstances where character deficits are evident, the “free will” or the disposition to make up for that deficit is also absent. And in most cases, character and cognitive deficits are the results of one’s association with a particular social environment. This, therefore, begs the question: are we the authors of our own thoughts and actions? And subsequently, can we be blamed for our thoughts and actions?

By using imaging technology to look at the structure and function of the brain, recent advances in cognitive neuroscience are threatening to alter the entire landscape of the criminal justice system. Neuroimaging studies of the seat of reasoning and self-restraint in the human brain are raising questions about the moral culpability of purported criminals. These studies show that many cases of violent or dangerous behaviours are simply “victims of neuronal circumstances.” With stacks of empirical evidence, the law, therefore, has to decide if it is morally just to impose capital punishment on a murderer who is neurologically inculpable of the crime that he or she is charged with.

Neuroscientists and legal pundits are suggesting that these developments may affect the future of the legal system, especially the concept of retributive justice. Sam Harris and others maintain that science does not support moral responsibility – the justification for retributive justice – since there are other social and biological factors that influence the actions of the alleged perpetrator of a crime. This raises ethical problems for a retributive justice system. It also challenges our perception of crime and disorderly conduct. Proper understanding of the cognitive neuroscience can also imbue us with the ability to measure our reactions to personal injury.

From the foregoing, is it fair to blame a young woman who resorts to prostitution as a means of subsistence – and not just because she is a nymphomaniac? Clearly, if she found herself in different circumstances where she could afford an education or develop entrepreneurial skills, she would be gainfully employed and thereby divest herself of the social stigma associated with being a sex-worker. This is part of how Sam Harris hopes that science can inform our moral judgements.

There is popular Marxist thought that echoes in this debate. It says, “It is not men’s consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” This simply means that our reality defines how we think and what we are capable of thinking. For instance, many people with certain religious beliefs have those beliefs not because it was their conscious decision, but instead, they came into it by socialization.

The languages we speak across diverse cultures and various fields of human endeavour are all embedded in the way we think. Languages are not just tools by which we express thought, but they actually shape our thoughts. Moreover, we do not think in a vacuum. We think by means of words and via the medium of a particular language. There is then the ominous realisation that our cognitive abilities are limited to the words we know or the language we are used to.

If man cannot think beyond his worldview and if his behavior is determined by his social existence, should he not construct a positive worldview for himself that would ultimately foster a more healthy consciousness?