Robert Sapolsky has written a book entitled Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will (Penguin Press, 2023). I cannot recommend this book, but it is a useful guide to the way liberals think about human freedom.
I should have known when I read in Sapolsky’s acknowledgments, “Thanks to Tony Fauci for battling the forces of Darkness” (406). As I see it, Anthony Fauci is complicit in the deaths of millions of people. How many deaths have resulted from the actions of other liberals who deny free will?
Free will, or freedom, is the basis of conservative thought and the object of attack for liberals, who believe that the State; the state’s “experts” (academics like Sapolsky); government bureaucrats; and a vast system of educators, media, and enforcement agencies should control human destiny. For conservatives, freedom and liberty are the basis of a civilized life.
Conservatives do not believe that their lives are “determined,” entirely or mostly, by forces outside their control. They also know that the deterministic factors that do exist in their lives can be countered by aggressive action on their part. Conservatives believe that human beings are unique and worthwhile, and as a consequence, they believe that every human life is valuable. This is part of the reason they oppose abortion.
Liberals, believing that everything is determined from the start and humans have no control over their lives, necessarily place less value on human life, which may be why they support abortion, euthanasia, and other actions that devalue life.
As I read Sapolsky’s book, I understood that the denial of free will is a foundation of liberal thinking and of all the policy decisions that follow. Sapolsky has a great deal to say about addiction, whether to drugs, alcohol, food, sex, or anything else, but it all comes down to the same thing for liberals: addiction is a disease, and addicts cannot be held responsible for their actions.
In a long and tedious chapter on “the Myth of Grit,” Sapolsky writes that “it’s impossible to successfully will yourself to have more will power” (124). It would be hard to find a more damaging idea — common not just in Sapolsky’s book, but almost universal in progressive ideology. And it is simply not true.
When I was a student in high school, I willed myself to study (memorize, conjugate, compose) Latin sentences and words for two to four hours every night. I ended up winning the high school Latin award, probably not as a result of my innate ability, but as a result of my “grit.” I also had the good luck to have a superb instructor. My high school teacher went on to earn her Ph.D. and become one of the best known Greek archaeologists. For a time, she was the only American licensed to explore on Crete. In college, my grit in learning Latin paid off in many ways, not least of which was a useful vocabulary and understanding of grammar and the structure of languages. All of this was the result of free will.
I’ll admit that there are many elements of personality, moral tendency, expression, and perspective that are largely determined. In his thousand-page biography of Ulysses S. Grant, Ron Chernow repeatedly argues that Grant’s alcoholism was a “disease,” not a matter of free will. Grant drank when he was under intense pressure (he drank in the interlude between battles; but not when he was in command); he drank in the lonely absence from his family; he drank often and with very little control once he began.
This pattern is evidence to Chernow that Grant was truly an alcoholic, with little control over his drinking. One might make the same argument for Jimi Hendrix or Janice Joplin, who both died of drug overdoses at age 27, or for tens of millions of Americans who are “addicted” to a host of substances, not least of all unhealthy and fattening food. But many million more are not addicted and, even when tempted, make a choice to live a sober, controlled, healthy life. Even Grant eventually swore off alcohol, though not the chain-smoking of cigars that finally killed him.
Taking it farther, millions of young men find themselves in prison as a result of their poor choices and lack of willpower. It seems that academics like Sapolsky would withhold judgment and punishment because these academics find neurological or other bases for criminal intent. If one lacks free will, how man one be judged guilty?
Murder has been judged to be a crime for many millennia, but some progressives would now prohibit punishment of murderers. And the message to potential felons is to go ahead and engage in violent crime because the worst they can expect is a slap on the hand and a few years of comfortable “re-education.” That’s the way it is already in places like Manhattan — unless your name is Trump.
The truth is that no civilization can continue to function in the absence of a strong belief in free will. Even if we are not entirely free in our choices, we must live as if we were largely so, and we must accept responsibility. Every person has made poor choices, mistakes that he later regrets. One can seek and find forgiveness from God for one’s poor choices, but not even God can eliminate the burden of free will and responsibility.
Sapolsky might argue that none of us should feel troubled because the mistakes we make are always the result of poor upbringing, faulty genes, the chaos in our neurons firing off inappropriately — though he might say and does seem to say that nothing is really “inappropriate.” We live in a chaos of accident and uncontrollable urges, with no free will to keep it all in check.
Just two months ago, a dear friend of mine was injured in a car accident. One passenger was killed, and my friend’s wife lost the use of one leg. Another driver was charged with causing the accident, and he may spend years in prison (this is Florida, not New York). He caused the accident, regardless of his upbringing, his addictions, his neurons firing off in a certain way. He will be punished, and in a civilized society, his sort must be punished, or else chaos will occur.
Sapolsky has a lot to say about chaos as well — mainly, “live with it.” But I do not want to live in chaos: I want to live in the most orderly society I can find, with safeguards, security, free will, and punishment for offenders. That’s why I live in a gated and patrolled community and rarely leave it.
The truth is that we are not “determined,” and we do not lack free will. Even if we are not entirely “free,” as Sapolsky demonstrates, it is nonetheless the degree of free will that we do possess that separates us from the brutes. It is also what protects us from those who would murder and assault, steal and rape, destroying innocent lives in the process.
Liberals have it entirely wrong. What is needed is not more compassion for criminals (because, Sapolsky might say, their actions are preordained), but more punishment, more precaution, more safeguards for the innocent. Some elements of our lives are indeed determined, but those who really count, like whether we murder a young girl on a whim or whether we drive drunk, are controllable and result from free will. Our only hope of living safely and decently lies in recognizing this fact.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture.
Pxfuel.
Comments are closed.