In the reading for April 4th, Alfred Mele argues the claim that free will does not exist. To further explore his ideas, he performed various studies. In one study, he invited participants to imagine a scenario in which a man sees a $20 bill fall from a stranger's pocket. The man considers returning it but decides to keep it instead. Mele asked the participants whether or not they think that the man had free will when he decided to keep the money. Seventy-three percent responded that the man did in fact have free will. This sparked curiosity for me, however, because I disagree with the majority.
In my social psychology class, we have been discussing how the influence of others can significantly affect our behavior and choices. People are constantly influenced by others, even if others aren't physically present at the moment. Similarly, people are affected by social norms. Social norms are the explicit and implicit rules that specify what behaviors are acceptable in a particular group or society. When a person is deciding how to behave or act, he or she will go with what they think is acceptable. What that person deems "acceptable" is typically denoted by the social norms of his or her given society or group.
Now, let's take the scenario in Mele's study in which a sees a $20 bill fall from a stranger's pocket. He is forced to make a decision - return it or not. According to social psychology, when the man is making his decision, he is influenced by the opinions of others and by social norms. The social norm in most societies is that stealing is bad. The right thing to do would be to return the money. In addition to that, people have a desire to look good. They want others to approve of them. If the man who found the money was surrounded by a huge crowd, he will feel very pressured to return the money. If he doesn't, the people around him might make insulting remarks or reveal disappointing expressions. No one wants to be disapproved of. Moreover, even if the crowd wasn't there, the man might think back to a time when his parents gave him a lecture on stealing. Even though his parents are not physically present, the mere exposure to what they think is right and wrong can affect his decision. In Mele's scenario, the man does not decide to return the money. One could argue that he was having major financial troubles. He noticed that the man in front of him seemed very well-off. In this case, the man's environment leads him to keep the money.
My social psychology class has basically taught me that our surroundings influence almost every move we make. In this sense, we really don't have a choice when we are making our decisions - unless one wants to argue that our choice is to look favorable to others. We go with the choice that we think others would approve of. However, let's be real, that's just a way to convince ourselves that free will exists in those scenarios. Having free will would be able to make the decision to keep the money without it resulting in the betrayal of your society. Overall, I just think that social psychology can add an interesting twist to the debate about the existence of free will.
I would have to agree with you as well because when I was reading that article I felt there were other factors in determining if we had free will or not. Yes, we can say the man had the free will to choice whether to return it or keep it but as you said it depends on the environmenet he is in the outside influences, so there may not be. Although we could argue that most people have the choice to choose the influences in their life by moving, or avoided certain environments so they are around a similar social atmosphere that coincided with the choices they want to make in life. I just think this debate is useless because it depends on how you look at it and the argument can really go back and forth forever.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think you've struck near the heart of the debate concerning free will with this post. We know just from observing everyday occurrences and from the scientific studies of disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology that everything that happens has a cause, including our own actions. When we ask ourselves what caused our actions we must always trace the causal chain back to something in which we have no choice, such as external experiences or genetics. However, many people still argue that though we may not be able to choose what we desire, the ability to act on what we desire is enough to give us free will. Even considering this though, it would seem we don't have much choice in the matter.
ReplyDelete