A Pawn in the Game of Life

Some people have believed that it is impossible for us to do anything differently from what we actually do. (...) With such an absolute understanding, it is claimed that the circumstances existing before we act will determine the outcome of our actions, making them inevitable. The sum of a person's experiences, desires, and knowledge, their inherited traits, social circumstances, and the type of choice they face, together with other factors we may not know about, combine to make a particular action inevitable given the circumstances.

Thomas Nagel, 'What Does It All Mean?'

The question that strikes me every time the discussion of free will versus determinism surfaces is this: How would these arguments have played out at the Nuremberg trials? What would the world have said if Thomas Nagel declared that Göring and his cohort had absolutely no choice when they committed the horrific war crimes of the Second World War? The answer is simple: The world would not have accepted it. I find this deeply interesting — that during the Nuremberg trials, the entire world suddenly agreed that certain actions are inherently morally wrong, and that ultimately, one is responsible for one's actions. The Nuremberg trials are an example where the typically theoretical discussion of free will versus determinism was no longer confined to theoreticians, because it reached the extreme. I believe that when confronted with extreme cases, one can determine whether a philosophical argument is consistent or not. This essay will explore some aspects of the discussion of free will versus determinism.

Nagel's quote raises the rather interesting claim that all our actions — which we experience as free — are actually consequences of thousands of different factors that we are unaware of, and that the outcome is therefore always inevitable. The factors Nagel emphasizes in the quote are inherited traits, social circumstances, knowledge, experience, and the nature of the choice. The people he describes are classic hard-line determinists, who believe that free will is an illusion. These people are gaining considerable recognition in certain circles, and there is a growing number of philosophers and scientists who also believe that the universe is predetermined.

When one considers the importance of inherited traits, much of modern science points strongly in favor of determinism. For example, there is our improved understanding of how profoundly our genes affect our lives, and the knowledge that our sensory apparatus is heavily shaped by evolution. Regarding social circumstances, Foucault has shown in his books how much of our understanding of various social domains — such as sexuality — is really just a product of our society and our era, and therefore also predetermined. In ancient Greece, Socrates believed that humans were neither good nor evil, merely foolish or wise. In other words: Evil actions are a consequence of a lack of knowledge. This is a form of determinism, based on the idea that the amount of knowledge you possess determines how you act. When it comes to experience, modern psychologists and philosophers like Daniel Dennett have shown how inaccurate our perception of the 'real' world actually is, and how our internal narrative shapes our opinions and actions. Again, determinism. An aspect I believe Nagel should also have emphasized is the importance of language. Derrida and Wittgenstein showed us how language is context-dependent and often loaded, so that our seemingly clear speech is actually the result of thousands of hidden layers we are unaware of. In short: With a holistic understanding, one can argue that determinism makes a rather strong case.

The counterpart to determinism is the deep-rooted notion of free will. The idea is as old as humanity itself: In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony with each other, the animals, and God, completely unaware of good and evil. But they had the choice to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and they did so after being tempted by the devil. If one reads Genesis symbolically, the story of Adam and Eve is a brilliant metaphor for the connection between self-awareness and free will. Before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they were not self-aware, just like the animals, and were therefore also without free will and responsibility. They were not responsible for their actions because they did not know good from evil. Animals do not know what is right or wrong. They simply act on instinct, and so did humans. But when humanity became self-aware thousands of years ago, we suddenly began to distinguish between right and wrong, and free will was born. A misanthropic, yet highly apt distinction between us and the animals is humanity's infinite capacity for evil. A visit to any torture museum will show how creative humans are when it comes to harming others. An animal would never do anything similar. I believe that our infinite capacity for evil is a strong, if tragic, argument for free will.

Another argument for free will is the universal notion of responsibility. The idea that your actions matter, and that you must answer for their consequences. Adolf Eichmann is a fascinating case. He denied all personal responsibility for the crimes he committed while he was head of logistics for the German death trains, despite overwhelming evidence being presented. He insisted that he had merely done his job, and was therefore not responsible. The rest of the world, however, did not accept his excuse, and he was found guilty beyond any doubt. It is easy to be a determinist in theory, but what would a hard-line determinist have said to Eichmann? With a deterministic worldview, one must admit that all of Eichmann's actions were already determined from the very moment the universe came into being. Nothing could have been changed, and Eichmann is merely another piece in an incomprehensible, random game. I am convinced that most determinists, if pressed, would be very reluctant to admit that Eichmann bears no personal guilt. So why is that? Why does the strong argument for determinism feel so deeply wrong in the face of the extreme? I cannot quite put my finger on it, but I believe there is something fundamentally flawed with the argument.

I believe the entire debate around free will versus determinism is often too black and white. It is easy to swallow the entire determinist argument because it provides a theoretical answer to everything and eliminates a good number of philosophical quandaries. The problem, however, is the practical dimension of such a view, since the theory falls short in the face of the extreme. One can also ask whether anything is worth doing at all, since everything is predetermined. The alternative one can embrace is the full argument for total free will, as Sartre did, but this too has many problems. One problem, for example, is that your free will is largely regulated by the society around you, and that much of science indicates that many of our choices are due to factors we are not aware of. So what is the golden mean? I believe the answer lies in a combination of Schopenhauer and chess.

Schopenhauer has a rather interesting view on determinism. He believed that all the choices we make in the present are determined by our individual essence. Your essence is the total sum of your 'experiences, desires and knowledge, inherited traits, social circumstances' etc. Your essence is a complex composition of all the factors at work within you, and all the actions you take stem from your essence. 'How does this view differ from a deterministic one?' one might ask. Well, the thing about Schopenhauer is that he believed one could change one's essence slowly but surely over time. Your essence is not fixed, nor merely controlled by your surroundings, because you have the freedom to choose which direction your essence develops. One can slowly but surely build the essence one desires, and the essence you build will determine your future choices.

In many ways, one finds the same ideas in Aristotle when he speaks of virtues and potential. Aristotle believed that if one were to be virtuous, one had to train oneself by performing small virtuous acts. Or in Schopenhauer's words: to change your essence. It is also exactly the same philosophy found in the Bible when Jesus says: 'Whoever is faithful in small matters will be faithful in large ones; whoever is dishonest in small matters will be dishonest in large ones.' (Luke 16:10). An amusing and fitting example of Schopenhauer's idea is found in film and literature. What defines a good protagonist? One can, to a certain extent, predict the protagonist's behavior. An author who manages to create a complex character whose essence drives their actions is a good author. All the choices Harry Potter makes throughout the books, for example, are defined by his essence. It would be unrealistic if he suddenly betrayed his friends and sided with Voldemort. The same idea is found in other characters like James Bond, Katniss Everdeen, and Raskolnikov.

One can view life as a game of chess, where every individual is a piece on a great board. The chessboard symbolizes the thousands of factors that influence our choices, such as genes, gender, parents, serotonin levels, illnesses, and so on. These are factors that are present, and they carry great significance. One can try to ignore them, but not avoid them. The other chess pieces symbolize the society around you. These are societal factors such as nationality, language, access to knowledge, freedoms, and so on. These factors also regulate your possibilities, and it is naive to ignore them. The last, but most important part of the game is you — a chess piece. The specific chess piece symbolizes Schopenhauer's essence. All of a pawn's moves are governed by the fact that it is a pawn. It is bound to act according to its essence, which in the game means moving straight ahead.

But, as every chess player knows, the pawn can become a queen if it crosses the board. This symbolizes the ability to change one's essence, and thereby act differently. You are not determined, but rather regulated. In a game of chess, you are regulated by rules, but you have many choices within the game. A game is never predetermined from the start, and every chess match is different. So, my point is this: Yes, there are factors that shape your choices and behavior, but you still have the freedom to change who you are and thereby act differently. The goal is to become aware of all the hidden factors that influence your life, and change the ones you can change. You have free will, in a semi-determined world. You are a pawn in the game of life.

Notes

The quote, my translation from English, was the basis for one of four prompts from which I chose to write my winning essay at the Norwegian Philosophy Championship (Norgesmesterskapet i filosofi). The original quote in the assignment read:

"Some people have thought that it is never possible for us to do anything different from what we actually do, in this absolute sense. (...) the claim is that, in each case, the circumstances that exist before we act determine our actions and make them inevitable. The sum total of a person's experiences, desires and knowledge, his hereditary constitution, the social circumstances and the nature of the choice facing him, together with other factors that we may not know about, all combine to make a particular action in the circumstances inevitable." (Thomas Nagel, 'What Does It All Mean?', 1987, pp. 50-51)