IEET LIFE RIGHTS SECURITY VISION TITLE=
AboutProgramsEventsPublicationsForumsBlogContactSupport         Login      Register    


Member Log In:

Login
If not yet a member:
Register

Monthly newsletter Daily news feed Changesurfer Radio Blog feeds
Cyborg Buddha Project


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


New at IEET


Hayles shadowboxes with transhumanism

Singular Sensations

The Chemistry of Love

Human-racism and biopolitics in SF

Dupuy’s “anti-humanism”

Recent Comments


Roko on 'Singularities Enough, and Time' (2008 07 03)

Michalis on 'Getting Paid in Our Jobless Future' (2008 07 03)

director on 'Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective' (2008 07 02)

rich on 'Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective' (2008 07 02)

jerry on 'It's the Business of the Future to be Dangerous' (2008 07 01)




IEET Fora




"There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to Man is ever natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident. And even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation." - J.R.R. Tolkien



TechEthics News


Snarky Compliments from Will Saletan

Cognitive Enhancement by Scientists

Annalee on PostGenderism

Transhuman, the comic

H+/Biocon/Technoprogressive Quiz at SAGE Crossroads





Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv



IEET > Life > Fellows > Russell Blackford

permalinkDiscuss in Forums subscribe


Lee Silver’s new book Challenging Nature


Russell Blackford

Russell Blackford


Metamagician and the Hellfire Club


Posted: Nov 25, 2006

Currently, I’m reading Lee M. Silver’s new book, Challenging Nature, a defence of biomedical science against more or less irrational attacks from both the right and left of politics. It’s a goldmine of information, and Silver’s thinking is sometimes more sophisticated than that of many philosophers and bioethicists who have considered the same issues. But he does sometimes overreach, where a traditionally-grounded philosopher might be more careful.

For example, early in the book, he attacks the belief in free will, as if such a belief must be unscientific. He doesn’t seem to realise that most philosophers (though, to be fair, perhaps not most philosophers who have been publishing about the problem of free will in recent years) are compatibilists. I.e., we see free will and physical determinism as compatible.

On this conception, free will does not mean the freedom to act in a way that somehow transcends physical nature, of which our brains and bodies are part. It simply means the freedom to act without being subject to certain kinds of coercion, manipulation, inner compulsion, etc. I doubt that there is such a thing as free will in any absolute sense, i.e. we may sometimes know all the facts, with no additional fact of the matter in borderline cases that “this person is acting with free will” and “this person is not”. It is just that there are various things we fear, which we see as impediments to acting as we would really like to: we fear people putting guns at our heads; we fear being overtaken by some psychiatric condition that drives us to act in ways that strike us as alien and would cause us trouble; we fear addiction to drugs, which could compel us to act in ways that, again, are against our current values; we fear being tricked into acting against our better judgment; we fear (not very seriously) the science-fictional prospect of a mad scientist taking over control of our personalities by wiring us to his damnable machine. On this conception of free will, I act freely whenever I act in accordance with my own values and beliefs, without being compelled by any of these feared things. It may be a matter of degree, as when economic circumstances may greatly limit my range of options - still, although we do fear poverty we don’t usually interpret economic circumstances as taking away free will, exactly. This may be because they (usually) still leave a range of possible actions, rather than compelling one in particular.

It seems to me that this is the only kind of free will worth having. The spooky contra-causal free will that metaphysical libertarians claim we possess does not even make sense to me, and Silver evidently feels the same way. However, I do think that we have free will in the worthwhile and meaningful sense, at least most of the time, and at least to a large degree. In short, people who - when asked - say that we possess free will are not necessarily claiming anything incoherent or mystical. If we want to find out how many have the spooky libertarian belief that Silver is deriding, we need to ask a different question.

Of course, if it turns out that the popular concept of free will is the spooky libertarian one, I am quite happy to be an error theorist about that concept. I’m not at all sure, though, that anything like this is meant by most of us when we use the expression in our ordinary lives. In fact, it looks to me like something dreamed up by theologians wanting to explain how there can be evil in the world when an all-powerful, perfect being is supposedly in charge - how could that being somehow not be responsible for evil? Belief in free will does not necessarily mean commitment to anything as difficult and metaphysical (possibly even irrational) as that. Silver should at least make the distinction before castigating people about this particular point.<


Russell Blackford PhD LLB is a fellow of the IEET, an attorney, science fiction author and critic, philosopher, and public intellectual. Russell lives in Melbourne, Australia where he teaches in the School of Philosophy and Bioethics at Monash University.

permalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Of philosopher kings and diminishing dictators

Previous entry: Technoethical Pluralism

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376