Search This Blog

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Free Will Exercise - If you were being forced to kill, would you?

I was thinking on the concept of free will and whether it truly exists for us or not. Various philosophers have made arguments both ways so I started thinking of a situation where a free will argument could be made both ways. Conditions will change in the scenario as it goes along.

You and another person have been kidnapped by a gang. The other person is tied to a chair. You're given a gun by the gang leader and told to either shoot the man or be killed yourself. If you kill the person, you'll be let free and clear and the gang will take credit for the person's murder (yes, it's a dubious situation but stranger things have happened so humor me.) I know it doesn't sound like a situation where free will is on the table but bear with me.

You're handed the gun. First hypothetical condition: You're a devout religious person and you believe killing is so terrible that you'd choose to die yourself rather than risk your immortal soul. This is your choice aka your free will. You're under duress but you are given two options and are free to choose either. You're shot in the head instead of the other person. End of situation. You had a choice but your religious upbringing prevented you from choosing anything other than death. Because you've been religiously programmed, did you have the capability to make a fair choice that could lead to your own survival? This is murky.

Next hypothetical: You're handed the gun. You have a strict reverence for life that is empathetic and compassionate but not religious. You feel for this poor person you're supposed to kill. Your survival senses tell you to kill but you can't. You're too good a person inside. Is this free will? Because of your innate compassion and feeling, you literally can't kill. There's something from deep inside preventing it. Being killed happens because the opposite situation is impossible. Free will is devoid in this situation because a choice of one or the other is impossible. This is the very definition of not being able to make a choice under duress.

Next hypothetical: You're a borderline sociopath and have no problem killing the person. You choose to blow their brains out and do. You're free to go. This is a choice but is it 100% free will? A sociopath lacks empathy because they just do. It's not really a choice for them. However, even if they want to kill, they have the choice not to kill so I see this one as being an argument for us having free will, even if it's a little more complicated. It's not a no win situation for you so it's an easy choice. You're free to make a decision that is beneficial to you.

Next hypothetical: Both the religious character and the empathetic character face a new wrinkle. You won't just be killed if you refuse to kill the other person, you'll be tortured and disemboweled before you die slowly in agony. Would the religious person still be guided by faith not to kill? Would the compassionate, feeling person shoot the other, knowing they'll die instantly, if they choose that option? The threat of torture has created panic in many a person and a choice to kill in that case is much more understandable as being out of character of a normally good human being. The survival instinct is also very strong and can be overwhelming. In such a situation, I think many people would implode, unable to make a choice at all. If so, I think free will is highly compromised. Could a choice be made? Yes. Is the person 100% responsible under threat of torture? I say no.

Next hypothetical: You're presented with the kill scenario again but you'll only be tortured if you refuse but not killed. You're also told that the person you're told to kill is a serial pedophile and child murderer. You're not a killer but presented with either torture or killing an evil person, would it be so bad if you killed that person? In this case, death is off the table but terrible pain is not. Many in a situation where they knew nothing of the other person would choose not to kill because no deaths would occur if you refuse. But knowing you're dealing with an evil person, would you feel it's a moral responsibility to execute the person by choice, even if nothing were on the line? If you chose to kill, would it be so bad? I think we'd all understand if you killed the person. And the fact that the person is a child murderer is a strong incentive to WANT to kill the person. You choose to kill out of free will and being tortured isn't even a major factor. You feel forced to make a decision but it's an easier choice and arrived at more willfully.

Final hypothetical: The other person is a beloved family member. Your options are killing the family member or being tortured and disemboweled while alive. I think free will is completely off the table here. You won't be able to kill the person and will therefore be tortured by default. There's no real choice here.

If any of this had to do with the law, none of it would be considered a free will issue because forced coercion would be the understandable stance. We obviously have free will in many aspects of our lives. We can choose Coke over Pepsi or a football game over a baseball game. We have free will in these ways. Oddly, in these exercises, the sociopathic character may be the only one that truly faces a choice of free will because killing would not be a problem for him. There would be no guilt feelings that would torment him as in the other hypotheticals. So, in such situations, do the normal people have free will to make certain choices? To kill or be killed? It could depend on the person and the situation, if these situations have any possibility for freedom of choice at all. They'll be forced to make a choice but they'll have the freedom to make that choice. Is any free will involved there? I think an argument could be made either way.