Every day, we face a multitude of choices. Some decisions are minor, like what outfit to wear in the morning, while others carry significant weight, such as deciding to buy a house. These choices give us a feeling of control and autonomy over our lives.
We believe we can select what we desire freely. Yet, this freedom is often more complex than it seems. Various influences can shape our decisions.
Peer pressure can sway us to act a certain way. Society often has expectations that guide our choices, influencing us to conform. Family members can also exert pressure, pushing us toward specific paths.
Moreover, our biology plays a role in our decision-making process. Hormones, which fluctuate based on different situations, can impact our mood and judgment. Genetic traits may also determine how we view and react to various choices.
Additionally, substances we consume might alter our state of mind, affecting our decisions. Our physical wellbeing can further influence our mindset, which in turn impacts the choices we make.
Research conducted by Danziger and colleagues in 2011 highlighted an interesting phenomenon among parole judges. The study revealed that judges tended to make more lenient rulings after having a meal, while their judgments were harsher when they were hungry.
This illustrates that human behavior is affected by both biological needs and environmental factors. Although these aspects influence our choices, they do not entirely dictate them. Other researchers, such as Clarke et al., argue that these influences merely shape our preferences without completely determining the final decision.
It can be suggested that addressing societal expectations is part of what we genuinely desire and can be included within the framework of our will, as Baumeister and Leary noted in 1995.
Additionally, since our bodies are integral to our existence, physiological factors must also be recognized as elements of our decision-making process, making them part of what we want as described by Shapiro and Spaulding in 2024.
The question of whether science has disproved free will is a complex one. A renowned study led by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in 1983 found that brain activity related to finger movements occurred before participants consciously decided to move.
However, more pressing complications challenge the concept of free will. Science has advanced significantly, enabling us to understand many phenomena in the physical universe. Much of this understanding is based on the principle of causal determinism.
This theory posits that every event results from preceding events and the laws of nature, much like a line of falling dominos where each tile’s fall is rooted in the initial action.
Many consider the workings of the mind to be a product of brain processes, with the brain itself acting as a biochemical machine that operates within natural laws. This line of reasoning suggests that our decisions lack true freedom, instead resulting from prior conditions and natural laws acting upon us.
Nevertheless, causal determinism falls short in explaining the origins of initial conditions in the universe. Another layer of complexity arises from quantum mechanics, which introduces the idea that at the smallest scales, nature does not always adhere to deterministic principles. Although this applies to minuscule particles, it suggests that the universe may not be fully deterministic.
Furthermore, certain biochemical reactions in the brain occur at such small scales that quantum effects could be influential. While this reality may not restore free will in a conventional sense, it does challenge the notion of complete determinism, opening up discussions about the nature of choice and agency.