This is a lightly updated version of a piece at my main blog site.
To riff on Dan Dennett, in part, with that title, that's my take on two
paired essays by the same person, Gregg D. Caruso, a professor of
philosophy at Corning Community College.
Somewhat in the first, and even more in the second, essay, he insists that free will — or certain types of free will — are connected with what he calls retributive justice.
(In all of this, I'm trying to practice the principle of charity to suss
out the argument that I think Caruso actually is trying to make, which
is discussed near the end. That said, I've only gotten there through
repeated comments by him, and others. And, if I'm coming to a wrong
conclusion by that principle of charity, then we have a bigger issue.)
That right there, the retributive justice, sounds like we're in John
Rawls territory, but with the addition of explicitly connecting this to
free will.
Should it be? Ethical naturalism is sometimes tied too closely too, or even conflated with, free will versus determinism.
Little Bobby Sapolsky committed this category mistake so badly that I spent a full 10,000 words crushing him. (And I thoroughly enjoyed it.)
In response to the second essay, specifically, and in connection with
the issue of "retributive justice," I set out a laundry list of both
logical and empirical or epistemological objections.
The logical one is that there is no logically necessary connection between the two. And, I wasn't alone on this, either. I said:
There may (or may not) be empirical connections, based on
psychology; hence my references to neuroscience. But, that’s a different
matter.
It’s like reading Rawls as if Rawls trying to justify his
ideas by appeal to certain versions of free will. And, what Rawls says about
issues of ethics and justice has no logically necessary connection with free
will.
I can be a hardcore determinist, yet still believe in the
value of retributive justice.
I can be a compatibilist, and believe in retributive
justice. I can be a libertarian free willer and believe in… I can be some sort
of free will optimist-skeptic and believe … I can be like I actually am,
thinking the whole free will “versus” determinism issue wrongly framed ….
and believe in retributive justice.
Or, I can be any of the above, and reject that idea.
Or, I can be any of the above, and reject the idea of
objective morality in general.
His response?
Essentially to offer a stipulative definition of free will.
Well, if someone wants to put forth a stipulative definition
of free will that insists it contains free-will actions for which one can be
held morally accountable, then I guess ethics and free will are logically
connected, especially if one insists that that's a two-way if-and-only-if
connection.
The two-way direction of an if-and-only-if is part of the key here.
Let's take the three main schools of normative ethics — consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics.
The details of how to be ethical in consequentialism and deontological
ethics are compatible with any school of thought on volition from the
hardest of classical determinists to the most libertarian of free
willers. Virtue ethics, in that it lays stress on the individual more,
and the psychological stance of the individual, is seemingly
incompatible with full-on determinism.
But, two of three major schools of normative ethics say that claims that ethical actions in general must be linked to free will are simply wrong.
And, given that justice is a subset of ethics, two of three major
schools of normative ethics say that claims that ethical actions in
general must be linked to free will are simply wrong.
Some people may think that a hard determinism dehumanizes people.
Actually not, or at least not necessarily. As long as determinism is
applied to theories of ethics in a non-Randian way, it should treat all
people as equally human. What that means for all people may be different
than in a free will system, but, still, it's not proposing to treat all
people like livestock or something.
Beyond that, deontological ethics has as one of its core tenets the command to not dehumanize by treating people as means rather than ends. Beyond THAT are questions of what it means to be "human," whether versus being a chimpanzee, being a Homo erectus (if one doesn't count them as "human") and so forth.
That said, back to Caruso.
There seems to be further deck-stacking. And, rather than try to
shoehorn comments into a 500-word limit at the time, there's my blog post, right
here!
First, Caruso goes on to sometimes talk about "harsh retributive
justice" or "just deserts." It's almost like he's at a pipe organ that
has stops and ranks that are all conservative dogwhistles of some sort.
And, to boot, I think he knows that.
He talks about conservatives who believe in free will having
harsher views on “just desserts” than those who don’t.
But, he doesn’t talk about political liberals and their
stances on justice being influenced, or not, by their thoughts on free will
I doubt that most liberals reject free will. Rather, it’s
either that they think it’s more attenuated by circumstances than conservatives
do — but NOT obliterated by circumstance.
Related? An old chicken or egg argument — for conservatives,
does insistence on free will come first, or a just world? To be honest, I don’t know if most conservatives even consider that.
The fact that Caruso only posts analysis of conservatives' relationship
to free will and certain theories of justice makes me think he's pulling
a Chris Mooney by implying that only conservatives, and not liberals,
engage in motivated reasoning.
He also ignores that political conservatives in the rest of the
developed world don't necessarily have a lot in common with US
conservatives. (This, too, is a mistake Mooney also makes.) I do agree
that religious overtones often influence discussions of free will, and
theories of justice. But, again, religiosity, or lack thereof, is
precisely where conservatives in the rest of the developed world most
differ from their American compadres.
So, outside of America? False move, Prof. Caruso.
Back to the arguments against linking free will and theories of justice.
Walter Kaufmann’s book “Without Guilt and Justice” critiques
Rawlsian theories of justice and ethics in general, and Rawls himself in
particular. It rejects both “retributive” AND “distributive” justice alike, on
other grounds. People are individuals, and we cannot treat them like data
points in population genetics, therefore there is no way of being “fair.”
Thus, I can — and do — reject ideas of retributive justice
in general based on anything that smacks of Rawls’ version of ….
Let’s call it liberal moral redistribution, with a
deliberate riff on socialism, even communism, in that “redistribution.” And, that's quite deliberate, and yet another reason I call myself a skeptical left-liberal.
So, with Caruso, I reject (for now) retributive justice, but with a
reason that is 180 degrees opposite of the reason that Caruso
wants to reject retributive justice.
And, I do so without throwing out babies with the bathwater.
Then, we have what I’m going to call “folk philosophy,”
paralleling “folk psychology,” on the issue of free will. And, frankly, I think
some professional philosophers engage in it, too.
Caruso, while referencing Libet, doesn’t really appear to
wrestle with the idea that neuroscience is still in the Early Bronze Age, if
that. We’re going to need science to tell us more about consciousness in
general, and volition in particular — without going down the road of scientism
— before we can talk about free will in general with any great degree of
clarity.
In addition to wrongly linking a cart and horse that doesn’t
necessarily go together, Caruso is putting an ill-defined cart ahead of that
horse.
And, again, it’s unnecessary. To riff on Gilbert Ryle's "category mistake," I am inventing the term "conjunctive mistake."
As I mentioned in my first comment to him on his first
essay, I covered a lot of this — the uncertainties of talking about free will
in all its glory — in
the essay I did at Scientia Salon about saying “mu” to
the idea of “free will vs. determinism.”
In that issue, like Caruso in his two essays and in other writings,
wrestled not only with Libet, but also Daniel Wegner and others. Do we
have a conscious free will in the classical sense? I think Wegner has,
at a minimum, raised some good questions.
Update: Wegner's "The Illusion of Conscious Will" is reviewed by me here.
That said, if he's right, or to the degree that he's right, that doesn't
leave some sort of determinism as a default. And, that, in turn, gets
me back to Caruso's thinking.
I think Caruso’s still stuck to a degree (but not
necessarily a huge degree) of viewing this issue in terms of polarities.
Finally, as I also noted, consciousness is not a “hard”
problem in the sense of David Chalmers. But it is, and will continue to be, a
difficult problem, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
As for that "conjunctive mistake"? Theories of ethics are complicated
enough, even if we stay on the side of moral realism, without committing
philosophical entanglement of mixing them with free will.
That said, to parse out Caruso.
You want to talk about more humanistic justice? Let's set aside free will. Here's my thoughts.
Can we adopt a less all-encompassing pragmatic
utilitarianism toward justice? Yes. And we should.
If, without dehumanizing people, retributive justice has at
least some value for the person upon whom it’s administered, as well as
larger
society, to the best our limited, non-Rawlsian point of view can tell,
then retributive justice is what we need. (Note that this largely does
not describe the current American retributive criminal justice system.)
If retributive justice doesn’t have such value, then we need to do something else.
Simple pragmatism. No particular stance on free will
involved.
Does this treat people as “automatons”? I think not. It
treats them as persons with some degree of freedom. On a free-will oriented stance, it
can also lead to them being more conscious about “drivers” of their behavior.
On a less free-will stance, it can simply work on those unconscious drivers,
while offering the possibility of more, including possible enlightenment of their consciousness.
And that's not all. Caruso could have — and should have — brought in
Daniel Kahnemann's "fast" vs. "slow" thinking into the issue. Even
without tying it directly to free will, it would directly tie to issues
of degrees of consciousness. But, it didn't.
Back to the logical disjunction. It's possible that some varieties of
free will might be MUCH more averse to retributive justice than might a
quasi-determinism. Any sort of theory of free will that sees free will
as something evolving would likely favor a theory of justice that aided
that evolution, even with cases like criminal behavior. Per my
"dehumanizing" notes above, that's that type of free will.
And, as for Caruso's case for free will being an illusion, in essence
for committing to some broad variety of determinism, beyond my
issue-by-issue, action-by-action partial psychological determinism? Per
a good (well, decent) review
of his book on the subject, I think I'm far from alone in finding him
wanting, even if it's for other grounds, and beyond those, of the
review. That said, the reviewer is Jonathan MS Pearce with all that entails. In addition, I
disagree with his take on Wegner. Pearce cites Alfred Mele saying he had disproven scientists who claim they have proven free will is an illusion. I had much more written here, but decided to extract it into a separate post about Mele, who I find wanting.
So, Caruso can claim until the cows come home that retributive justice,
and a desire for it, are based on free-will stances on volition. He'll
still be wrong.
And, yes, he writes a lot about free will. So, I'm not sure if he thinks
attacking retributive justice — his claims aside — is a winning "move"
because it will appeal more to liberals, whom secularists are more
likely to be, or what. But, it seems he also has legitimate concerns
about retributive justice.
Fine. Write a separate essay about that. And, I would likely love to discuss it with you.
As for engaging with, or not, the idea that
belief in free will could be harmful to society?
First, the shorter answer, as I Tweeted Caruso: How would one even begin
to try to scientifically prove such a claim? Surveys would offer
correlation evidence, of course, and might point to causation. But
that's not guaranteed.
Second, you cite what you do note as "a few studies," while noting that
they're limited in what they indicated, but not noting whether they
wrestle with either of the two issues noted above:
1. Distinguishing US conservatives from those elsewhere and
2. Looking at how belief in free will may affect liberals' thoughts.
Third,
a belief in the existence of free will is about as much like
the actual existence of free will as
belief in Santa or Jesus is the same as actual existence of Jesus or
Santa. If Caruso can't differentiate between the two, or ...
If THAT is his premise for claiming a logical connection between free
will and theories of justice, that it's actually some connection between
a BELIEF in free will and theories of justice, then I don't want to go
further down a rabbit hole about making assumptions to clarify his
thinking, assumptions which he might reject even though they seem true.
That said, per that principle of charity, I think that's what Caruso is trying to argue. He may have a point.
Let's assume that we can do research, and ignoring liberal/conservative
issues to start, we just confirm that, for society in general, in the US
and elsewhere, that a belief in free will leads to a belief in the
efficacy of retributive justice.
Let us say that criminology studies show retributive justice in general
is not efficacious, and generally becomes less efficacious the more
harsh it is.
We can then discuss this in terms of ethics, and relatedly, in terms of political philosophy.
Perhaps Caruso will actually wend his way to that in final comments, or
maybe will be given an opportunity by Massimo Pigliucci to write a third
essay that comports with my charitable interpretation of his first and
second ones.
As for the rest of what's actually in his two essays?
I would say, or write an essay on issues in volition, but ...
On my "mu," not just with Caruso but in general, I'm at the point where I
think we should just stop talking about free will for, oh, about
another century or so.
Finally, authors responding to reviews on Goodreads is bad enough and usually a sign of being butt-hurt by a bad review. Reviewing your own book,
as Caruso does? I've never before seen this, and consider it highly un-kosher. Perhaps not as bad in one sense, but worse in another, is that it's just copy-pasting literary reviews.
Seriously.
Cognitive neuroscience in particular, and science of mind in general,
isn't going to move from the Early Bronze Age into the Iron Age for at
least that long, and it's ridiculous, ultimately, to talk about issues
of volition, and theories of them, before then.
