-1

The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes. But whenever we make a decision, it always has causes.

ex: If you have just enough money to buy either an apple or a chocolate for a snack, what makes you choose one over the other?

Is it a spontaneous decision without any causes? No! If you pick the chocolate, it could be due to the craving of the taste of chocolate at that time. Why do you crave for it? Because the taste of chocolate had made an impression on you which says that it is enjoyable. Would you have chosen the chocolate, if it had an unpleasant taste? So your willingness to pick the chocolate is not really free. Because the taste played a big role in your decision. On the other hand, if you are willing to pick the apple, is that willingness free? No! Again, it could be because of the of the taste. Or because eating the apple would be healthier. If the apple wasn't a healthy food, would you have picked it? So your willingness to pick the apple is dependant on the condition of the food. Even if you pick any one of them just because you are hungry, is that decision free? No! Because the decision is cause by hunger and hunger is cause by other causes.

So the question is: is free will possible in a practical world or is it just 'will' which isn't free?

Sankha Kulathantille
  • 25,668
  • 1
  • 22
  • 64
  • I believe you're a bit too quick on the trigger with the conclusions you draw here. May I suggest being more cautious about what you take as truth, and what still needs more inspection before you commit to eternal statements. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 20:59
  • I don't have a fixed view on it, @Sadhana. That is why I asked the question. If you can give a satisfactory answer, I will definitely appreciate and agree. :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:05
  • Well, isn't it enough to consider that this is the Buddha's teaching? – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 21:19
  • @Sadhana, what is the Buddha's teaching? The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:40
  • My friend I believe that people have been wasting time arguing over this concept since way earlier than that. But my answer at least points out some excerpts from the time of the Buddha. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 23:08
  • In this comment you say that a choice is not "free" if it is "caused" (conditioned) by "an awareness of any nature". I find it hard to imagine choice that's NOT 'conditioned by awareness of any nature': that leaves only choice that's unaware (e.g. non-sentient), or choice that's unconditioned (e.g. truly random). Neither of those seem to me useful/desirable definitions of "free". Was it your intention, when you posted this question, to argue that "free will" doesn't exist and/or isn't a useful concept? – ChrisW Nov 21 '14 at 02:20
  • @ChrisW, yes, if something is born of causes and sustained by causes, it cannot be truly regarded as being 'free'. Thus there's 'will' but no "free will". But some might limit the scope of 'free' to not being influenced by a god. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 21 '14 at 03:07
  • @SankhaKulathantille And if a major cause is your present intention, which is a result of your free will, given a present situation and the options it leaves you with? Say, at the very least, kill or not kill. Would you say that there is no free will there? If that be the case, then is the killer to be held responsible? Is there anything wrong about the act if it were just another predetermined, unavoidable consequence of something primordial? – Sadhana Nov 21 '14 at 10:20
  • @Sadhana There's a notion of Proximate and ultimate causation. You could say that the killer was the proximate (near or direct) cause of the murder, however that the killer's poverty was a more distal cause, and the killer's poverty was caused by the king's wars, etc., etc. It sounds like a description of Samsara which has "no discernible beginning". – ChrisW Nov 21 '14 at 12:24
  • @ChrisW According to the canon, it's karma. But the precepts say that no matter how easy or necessary it might seem, they say you can, and should, always stick to them, even at the expense of your life. So long as you're on the path, you stick to your precepts, you try to restrain yourself when needed, and you look after yourself and others, then any such metaphysical discussion goes nowhere, and is a lowly waste of time, and that's what the canon says as well. Having reached this conclusion, I must now withdraw from this discussion, and wish you well. – Sadhana Nov 21 '14 at 14:47
  • Karma doesn't require free will. But it requires will. Karma is simply another process of causes and effect. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 21 '14 at 14:50
  • "No free will" is a theory which seems to discount personal responsibility/authority for choice. I still think that's just arguing about whether there is "a person" or "a self". – ChrisW Nov 21 '14 at 15:00
  • Karma doesn't require personal responsibility or for it to be fair. Karma is just a law of nature. if you throw a ball up, it doesn't have a personal responsibility to come down. But it comes down nonetheless – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 21 '14 at 15:24
  • From what I can tell you ask six question here which you answer yourself in a very rhetorical way. First, I do not feel that the rhetoric is helpful in the stackexchange community. But more importantly I do not see any mention of Buddhism at all with this question. Try asking at philosophy.stackexchange.com – Thien Nov 21 '14 at 20:20
  • @ChristopherLee This question was (presumably) partly a result of the discussion in these comments. I don't think it's off-topic, though you may not like its being a "rhetorical question". – ChrisW Nov 21 '14 at 20:54
  • How is this question Buddhist in nature and not just Philosophical in nature? – Thien Nov 21 '14 at 21:34
  • @ChristopherLee Just because Buddhists sometimes want to explain their view. For example according to this comment it's meant to be obvious that karma, albeit natural law, cannot be defined by an equation because free will is axiomatic. Or in this comment I tried to claim that one doesn't have to feel anger but can instead learn to be able to choose. – ChrisW Nov 21 '14 at 22:09

4 Answers4

3

The ego has survival instincts hardwired into our bodies. These survival tendencies are what give rise to greed, ignorance and hatred. This is what creates suffering.

To be conscious of this process is the aim of most Buddhist paths. This awareness itself is what gives rise to our capacity to choose something other than what our programming demands. Thus, "free will" as opposed to "will". Will implies that our choices are predetermined, which is true when the ego reigns.

Free will is the entire point of our chasing enlightenment to begin with. This is why Buddhism exists, and why it's called "liberation" in English.

Vishwa Jay
  • 175
  • 8
  • "awareness itself is what gives rise to our capacity to choose" - Again you are describing a will that is caused by awareness of a certain nature. Here the 'will' is again dependant on the quality of another. So how can it be free? – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 18:15
  • You are trying to define will outside of a context of consciousness. It doesn't exist in a vacuum; it relates to another concept: choice. The difference is whether that choice is driven by ego or by Mind. If there is no awareness, there is no choice; if there is no choice, there is no will. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 19:34
  • I'm talking about something being caused by another. Not something being related to another. Ego or no ego, if the choice is driven by another factor, it's not free. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 19:51
  • If it is caused by something, is that not a relation? – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 19:53
  • The relation is such that the effect cannot be declared free as it cannot come to existence without the causes. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 19:59
  • You are now arguing against your previous statement... either there is a relation, or there is not. It is defined as free, but the question then becomes "what is it free from?" And for that question, I have already given an answer. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 20:05
  • A mango plant is caused by a mango seed. In that sense the seed and the plant have a causal relationship. But there can be 2 mango plants related because they are from 2 seeds of the same tree. But they don't have a causal relationship. So the qualities of one doesn't affect the other in that relationship. So like i've said before, I'm talking about a specific relationship in which one is dependant on the other. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 20:14
  • In trying to see what you're saying, I am still confronted by the idea that you're rejecting the concept of karma in the statements you're making. The term "free will" is present because it describes an experience. What experience is it describing? You're trying to separate and overanalyze the term without considering its source. Thus, causality is still the primary issue in your arguments. For the mango plants, how could they both be mangos without a common ancestor? Dependence is causal in nature. Cause-and-effect relationships are what demonstrate dependence. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 20:29
  • The ancestor and the plants have a causal relationship. But not plant 1 and plant 2. Karma is all causes and effect. How does it contradict with my statements? – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 20:33
  • To say they don't have a causal relationship is to deny their source. The contradiction is in your trying to remove the causality and have something exist in a vacuum when it simply can't work that way. Trying to hammer a nail with a jellyfish would have more effect. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 20:39
  • If we are considering only the 2 plants, there's no causal relationship. Causal relationship only comes when you bring a 3rd item into the discussion which is the cause of the items that are being discussed. I'm not trying to remove causality. I'm simply saying that if something is born of causes and sustained by causes, it doesn't qualify as being free. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 20:44
  • If we are considering just the two plants, then how can we possibly have a conversation about will, which is by definition about causality? You're trying to talk about a term and yet exclude the primary thing that defines it. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 20:51
  • The 2 plants were given as an example for relationships other than causal relationships. That's why in an earlier comment I said, I'm talking about causes. Not just 2 things being related. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 20:54
  • The concept of will depends on causality in order to be defined. It simply cannot exist in a vacuum. Your method of rejection of the argument is a denial. It shows that your intent isn't to learn or to ask in earnest, but to be superior. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:17
  • The idea of "free will" is free only from the constraints of ego; it is not free in any absolute context. (Which is what my answer said, less briefly.) – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:18
  • "The concept of will depends on causality" - That's why I say it isn't free. " your intent isn't to learn or to ask in earnest, but to be superior" - sounds like a neat way of saying "You are trolling". But I'm not! :) "The idea of "free will" is free only from the constraints of ego" - Well, anything is possible if you narrow down the scope like that. You say ego. Someone else can say being free from a god. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:23
  • In either case, free from biological pre-programming. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:27
  • now you are giving another definition.Someone else can say "free from electromagnetism". We can consider anything to be free, if we keep twisting it like that. :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:32
  • In the case of will, the definition is pretty well-defined already. I'm not twisting anything; I'm using the common social definition that everyone uses. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:33
  • There's no reference to ego here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:36
  • It's implied in this conversation by the nature of the topic (Buddhism), and the way that the ego operates. If you're going to strictly go by the philosophical definition (which is what that article does) then perhaps you would be more at home in a philosophical venue? – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:40
  • Ok, if you are saying that the meaning of the term in a Buddhist context is the choice without ego, you should be able to come up with a Sutta reference for it. Otherwise, it's just your own interpretation. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:43
  • By its nature, free will is subject to interpretation. So yes: there is no absolute definition of it. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:44
  • So it's your own interpretation :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:53
  • What do you hope to gain by arguing about my answer? Nothing so far has caused me to need to re-think any portion of it. It's my answer. There's not going to be a singular correct answer, because that would require proof. There being no possible evidence of free will or destiny being dominant, any attempt to say that any answer (my own or yours or anyone else's) is anything but our own interpretations is going to be flawed at its foundation. Such is the nature of anything experiential. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 21:56
  • There's nothing right or wrong about my answer. You're trying to be right, is all. Thus, proclaiming your superiority or something similar... and yes, now you're trolling, truly. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 22:01
  • Good night, friend! :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 22:02
1

Words are pointers. They are not the thing they represent. As such the question misses the point.

In Buddhism there a distinction between karma and things like cultural programming on the one hand and liberation and conscious choice on the other hand.

The problem is that you don't have a concept of what conscious choice means. You might never have experienced it so any word can't point you to the concept. You will always match it to previous experience that are of a different quality. You can observe that all the decisions you have made in your life can't be reasonably called free but that doesn't mean that's true for everyone.

If you sit a while in meditation you can discover new ways to make choices. Not anymore by bound to pick the chocolate because you have aren't picking the chocolate anymore because you have a craving for it or eat the apple because you should eat healthy.

Christian
  • 149
  • 2
1

There may be a mistake in your first sentence, i.e.:

The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes.

I think that the state of willing (wanting) anything "without cause" or "for no reason" would (if that state can even exist at all) be seen as a bad (unnecessary, useless, random, insane, unwise) thing.

If that (madness) were the actual definition of "free will", then probably nobody would be interested in it.

Instead of "without cause", the first two sentences in Wikipedia say "unimpeded by contraints",

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).

For example:

  • A "prevailing factor" might be that my neighbour owns something which I do not own and which I want: but "unimpeded" by that factor I might be able to "freely choose" to not steal it.

  • A "constraint" might be that I'm hungry and have no food: but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to be happy instead.

  • A "constraint" might be that my country's laws require me to join the army and go to war: but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to go to prison instead.

  • A "constraint" might be that you are taking (stealing) things from my house, but unimpeded by that constraint I might "freely choose" to give those things to you as a gift.

Some things (e.g. a river which is running downstream) might be seen as acting mechanically without having any "will" (and without sentience): they're just a machine.

  • Part of the "free will" discussion is whether people have no choice because things are pre-decided by God.

  • Another part of the "free will" discussion is whether people have no choice because things are pre-decided by Physics, by a nothing-but-mechanical nature/universe.

I suspect that by the time you agree or claim that there is such a thing as "will" and "choice", then you're already moving away from Hard determinism.

I searched the Wikipedia article to see whether it mentions such a thing as non-free will. The word "will" exists 500 times in the article, and almost every time it's used it's used with the word "free". In other words, "will" and "free will" might be (intended to be) used as synonyms: if it's not "free" then it's not "will".

For example if you a enter a contract under duress then the contract can be void: because if it wasn't of your own "free" will, therefore it wasn't really "your will" at all.

There only very few (pathological) places in the Wikipedia article where "will" is used without "free":

Free will as a psychological state

A person's will is identified with their effective first-order desire, that is, the one they act on, and this will is free if it was the desire the person wanted to act upon, that is, the person's second-order desire was effective. So, for example, there are "wanton addicts", "unwilling addicts" and "willing addicts". All three groups may have the conflicting first-order desires to want to take the drug they are addicted to and to not want to take it. The first group, wanton addicts, have no second-order desire not to take the drug. The second group, "unwilling addicts", have a second-order desire not to take the drug, while the third group, "willing addicts", have a second-order desire to take it. According to Frankfurt, the members of the first group are devoid of will and therefore are no longer persons. The members of the second group freely desire not to take the drug, but their will is overcome by the addiction. Finally, the members of the third group willingly take the drug they are addicted to.

and

The physical mind (see also Neuroscience of free will)

For example, an addict may experience a conscious desire to escape addiction, but be unable to do so. The "will" is disconnected from the freedom to act.

and

Neurology and psychiatry

Similarly, one of the most important ("first rank") diagnostic symptoms of schizophrenia is the delusion of being controlled by an external force.[186] People with schizophrenia will sometimes report that, although they are acting in the world, they did not initiate, or will, the particular actions they performed. This is sometimes likened to being a robot controlled by someone else. Although the neural mechanisms of schizophrenia are not yet clear, one influential hypothesis is that there is a breakdown in brain systems that compare motor commands with the feedback received from the body (known as proprioception), leading to attendant hallucinations and delusions of control.[187]

I suspect you'll agree that Buddhists commonly experience at least the first kind of "freedom": the feeling that they are able to do what they want to do.

Note however that being conscious that "I choose" might be a view of self. An answer like this one might (I don't know) suggest that "free will" and "choosing" is the normal state of mind: and that a state of non-choosing or surrender-of-self might be an (enlightened) ideal which a Buddhist aims for.

Community
  • 1
ChrisW
  • 46,455
  • 5
  • 39
  • 134
  • +10 for the 2nd attempt. But lets analyse one of your examples. "my neighbour owns something which I do not own and which I want: but "unimpeded" by that factor I might be able to "freely choose" to not steal it" - Here you presume that for a choice to be free, it should not be caused by factors which are deemed evil. In this case, greed or jealousy. But it is free, if it is caused by factors which are agreed to be good. In this case, it could be shame and fear of being caught, fear of Karma or some other good factor. But freedom has nothing to do with good or bad. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 22 '14 at 02:57
  • Love, compassion, awareness, wisdom etc. are all causes just like the greed, hatred, ignorance. 'Will' is something that is caused by them. 'surrender-of-self' doesn't even apply as there's no self in any of them in the 1st place. The only reality worthy of being called free is 'Nibbana' as it is uncaused. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 22 '14 at 03:15
0

You cannot always choose - conscious choice implies awareness: but when you can, choose well.

Free will has been the subject of argument in Western philosophy: partly because of notions like "God is omnipotent" (because if God can do anything and does everything then how much choice do we have); and/or because the opposite notion of the world having a physical (not spiritual or mental) basis.

IMO this is a 'false dichotomy'. It might be asking a question about the existence of self of the kind that it's recommended you don't ask.

There was a nursery story (i.e. a children's fable) told to me: someone asked a centipede, "Which foot do you move first?" and the centipede thought about it and didn't know and got confused etc. Whereas a natural centipede will just move.

Similarly a natural person makes decisions, and those decisions have an effect, and self-training (if you choose to do so) can make the decisions more skillful, etc.

ChrisW
  • 46,455
  • 5
  • 39
  • 134
  • Yea, but the question is, whether one is aware or not, can the action be taken as an instance of free will? The centipede moves because of will. But that will could be caused due to the need of food. So it isn't really free. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 16:36
  • If you want to describe will as "free" then it's up to you to specify what it's free of. I think Buddhists typically won't accept a statement like, "I had no choice because God made me do it": therefore will is "free" of, for example, predetermined divinely-ordained constraint. – ChrisW Nov 20 '14 at 16:48
  • Similarly, Buddhism is a bit more subtle than cause-and-effect: it teaches "dependent origination" i.e. there's more than one 'condition' for origination. I think you can 'need food', you can be hungry, yet you can choose to eat or choose not to eat. So, that is some freedom. – ChrisW Nov 20 '14 at 16:54
  • Buddhism doesn't accept a God or a soul. So "I had no choice because God made me do it" doesn't apply in any case. Yes, there's always more than 1 causes for all conditioned things. "yet you can choose to eat or choose not to eat"- But why? It could be because you are on medication. So your decision to eat or not to eat is affected by factors other than hunger. So again, it isn't really free. But I guess if you narrow down the word 'free' to just being free from another being, there can be free will. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 17:36
  • I would say that acceptance of God or Soul is actually dependent on lineage. The tradition I am in actually teaches about God and Soul. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 17:43
  • Then it must be a lineage that rejects 'Anatta' - one of the core teachings of Buddhism. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 18:18
  • It certainly doesn't reject anatta; rather, we consider it non-self, in the same way that non-action is defined. It appears to be thus, but is not necessarily. The non-self (anatta) necessarily requires self (atman) or it could not exist as a definition in any vocabulary. To speak of it at an intellectual level requires only words; to understand requires an experience. That's all I can say in such a limited space, but it should suffice for now. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 19:48
  • Non-self doesn't require a self. It only require a definition of what a true self would be. – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 19:55
  • And how could you define a true self without a false one from which to infer the truth? – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 19:58
  • You define a true self by defining it's qualities. Not by inferring it from a false self. You should read the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 20:02
  • 1
    My friend, if you already have real knowledge, why ask? But if your asking is sincere you must be more sensitive about the way you conduct and lead discussions. As the water snake similie goes, we don't study the Buddha's Dhamma for attacking others nor for defending ourselves in debate. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 20:29
  • 1
    @Sadhana Thank you. I was not thinking of that, and its timing was well done. However, I must also question how much real knowledge is there, and how much is simply regurgitation of what he was told (assuming Sankha is male by the name). It's one thing to speak the truth; another to know it. – Vishwa Jay Nov 20 '14 at 20:48
  • @Sadhana, I never claimed direct knowledge. Either you have misinterpreted my motives or opposing views hurt you. That is usually caused when you cling to a view. I don't cling to mine, so I don't need to ask others be sensitive when they post opposing comments. :) – Sankha Kulathantille Nov 20 '14 at 21:50
  • @VishwaJay, @ChrisW, I'd appreciate it if you reviewed my answer. I've also tried to formulate it in such a way so as to speak to where you're coming from, though I'm not sure how well that went. P.S. It's true, the canon never says there is no self. In fact, in MN2 it says As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... So any established doctrine of existence/non-existence of the self simply isn't part of the practice as suggested here. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 23:05
  • @Sadhana I'm not saying that self or view of self exists or doesn't exist. I'm saying that I suspect that Sankha's definition of "free" might imply a specific view of self: i.e. that the existence or non-existence of "free" will is meant to imply view of a "self which is or isn't a chooser who is free, independent, unconditioned". Therefore I think this question belongs in the thicket of views category. Either answer is problematic: if you accept "no free will" then perhaps you deny personal responsibility or authority. – ChrisW Nov 20 '14 at 23:27
  • But "free will" according to Sankha's definition here seems to be that it's not considered "free" if it's even conditioned by an awareness of nature. If that's a good definition then what does "free" even mean: does it mean "free of awareness" i.e. unconscious and non-sentient? Does it mean "unrelated to all conditions" i.e. truly random? So both of the extremist views, of "totally free will" and "no free will at all" are untrue or counter-productive or useless. – ChrisW Nov 20 '14 at 23:35
  • @ChrisW Yes, I easily agree with that. If will were totally free then of course we would not need the practice, which we do. :) So indeed what you say makes a lot of sense to me. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 23:37
  • @ChrisW However, I do find it odd to call that will. From my own experience, I can say that often I'm not entirely sure what to will. I often go for what I'm told is bad, until I've directly experienced something better. Now, it takes some effort trying to go off the natural path (of the autopilot). But it's only when I manage to do it and glimpse at what's out there that the words of the teaching really go to heart, and then I can genuinely, and with much less internal conflicts and effort, direct my will towards them. – Sadhana Nov 20 '14 at 23:40