Flickers of Freedom

Clearing the Path

My congratulations  to all concerned on the launch of “Flickers of Freedom”.  I look forward to reading and participating in its discussions.  My only reservation (and the reason I didn’t engage the first discussion)  is that I’m afraid I don’t know what a “Flicker of Freedom” is supposed to be.

I had a similar problem with “The Garden of Forking Paths”.  Both titles seem to me empty metaphors: placeholders for concepts never made clear, promissory notes for arguments that are never delivered.  I would suggest that if we are to make progress in this field we need to hit “reset”  and  try for that clarity that philosophers are supposed to prize.

If determinism were true, we would lack free will.  So say incompatibilists, some of whom quickly add that it wouldn't really matter, since we would still be morally responsible.  But never mind the mattering and moral responsibility part.  I'm interested in the first part: the claim that we would lack free will.  I want to know why. I want to know how.

Flickers of Agency

Flickers of freedom is the name of the blog, so it seems appropriate to kick off with a discussion of these flickers. Flickers are freedom is what John Martin Fischer calls the (allegedly) nonrobust alternative possibilities left to an agent in a Frankfurt-style case. Fischer thinks that these flickers can’t ground moral responsibility. In this post, I want to sketch one view upon which flickers are vital to morally responsible agency: not  by being vital to moral responsibility, but by being vital to agency. The view I have in mind is Helen Steward’s (and the aim of the exercise is, as much as anything else, to get her view the audience it deserves). I shall discuss her paper The Truth in Compatibilism and the Truth of Libertarianism' (Philosophical Explorations 12.2 (2009): 167-179).

Recent Work on Agency and Responsibility

This is the inaugural post of what will be series of monthly posts here at Flickers of Freedom entitled "Recent Work on Agency and Responsibility."  The goal is not to be exhaustive.  Instead, we will simply post a few recent papers (or books) that caught our attention.  We encourage you to do the same in the comment threads.  In short, this series of posts will enable readers of the blog to stay on top of the growing interdisciplinary literature on agency and responsibility.  This month, I am focusing exclusively on recent agency-related articles from Neuroethics--which is edited by our own Neil Levy.  As always, happy reading!

 

Roy Baumeister et al., “Free Will as Advanced Action Control for Human Social Life and Culture”

Abstract  

Free will can be understood as a novel form of action control that evolved to meet the escalating demands of human social life, including moral action and pursuit of enlightened self-interest in a cultural context. That understanding is conducive to scientific research, which is reviewed here in support of four hypotheses. First, laypersons tend to believe in free will. Second, that belief has behavioral consequences, including increases in socially and culturally desirable acts. Third, laypersons can reliably distinguish free actions from less free ones. Fourth, actions judged as free emerge from a distinctive set of inner processes, all of which share a common psychological and physiological signature. These inner processes include self-control, rational choice, planning, and initiative.

 

Eddy Nahmias, “Why ‘Willusionism’ Leads to ‘Bad Results’: Comments on Baumeister, Crescioni, and Alquist”

Abstract  

Drawing on results discussed in the target article by Baumeister et al. (1), I argue that the claim that the modern mind sciences are discovering that free will is an illusion (“willusionism”) is ambiguous and depends on how ordinary people understand free will. When interpreted in ways that the evidence does not justify, the willusionist claim can lead to ‘bad results.’ That is, telling people that free will is an illusion leads people to cheat more, help less, and behave more aggressively, but these responses may be based on people’s interpreting willusionist claims to mean that they lack the powers of rational choice and self-control.

FSU Free Will Post-doc Position

Al Mele asked me to post something about the following unique and exciting opportunity:

One year post-doctoral Fellowship, beginning Fall 2010. We are looking for philosophers with an AOS in free will. The Fellow is expected to teach four courses per year in the Philosophy Department. Salary: $40,000. Please send dossier (including letter of application, CV, writing sample, three letters of recommendation, and evidence of teaching effectiveness) to Post-doc Search Committee, Department of Philosophy, 641 University Way, P.O. Box 3061500, Florida State University, Tallahassee FL 32306-1500. Fax 850-644-3832. Applications must be received by April 1, 2010. Women and members of minority groups under-represented in academia are especially encouraged to apply. Florida State University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer, committed to diversity in hiring, and a Public Records Agency. Inquiries to Piers Rawling, Chair, prawling@fsu.edu, or 850-644-1483.

Good luck to the applicants!

Welcome to Flickers of Freedom

Welcome to Flickers of Freedom. We decided to create this blog to fill the vacuum left by the closing of the Garden of Forking Paths.   We aim to promote the discussion of issues in the philosophy of action, concentrating on free will, moral responsibility and agency. We hope to build on the success of the Garden (and avoid the problems that led to its closing).

The Garden of Forking Paths was a success.  It lasted nearly six years and it provided a forum for high quality discussion. Some of its posts led directly to journal publications; many contributed less directly to publications. It also enabled philosophers working in different parts of the United States, and in different parts of the world, to establish friendships and a genuine community.  Many of us played a part in that success.  But we also acknowledge some responsibility for its eventual closing. We took the Garden for granted; we were less active than we should have been.  We only realized how important the forum was for us, personally and professionally, when we were faced with the prospect of losing it. We hope that the experience will jolt all of us out of our lethargy, and that Flickers of Freedom will carry on the best traditions of the Garden.

We believe that our renewed commitment to sustaining a lively agency community will help to avoid the problems that led to the closing of the Garden. Beyond this, we are taking steps to ensure that post quality is high and that postings are frequent. Taking Pea Soup, the ethics blog, as our model, we have decided at least initially to limit the pool of contributors to professionals working in the philosophy or psychology of agency.  We are also setting down a requirement that contributors contribute at least two posts a year to the blog (not including brief pointers to news items or upcoming conferences, papers, etc.). In addition, comments will be moderated. Commenting on the blog will be open to all comers; the only requirement is that comments be (reasonably) polite and on topic.

A word on the name. Flickers of Freedom is a phrase introduced into philosophical debate by John Martin Fischer, in his highly influential discussion of the Frankfurt-style cases that help motivate his semi-compatibilism.  We adopt the name for this blog not because we expect that it will be appropriate to describe it as merely a flicker of freedom, but in tribute to John Martin Fischer. Not only is his work a central reference for all us, but we also want to acknowledge the role he played in establishing and guiding the Garden. He was pivotal to its success, though he cannot be blamed for its eventual closure. We hope the lively, penetrating but always generous philosophical voice of John Fischer will be echoed here at Flickers.

These are exciting times in the philosophy of agency. In the past 12 months, at least half a dozen important books on many different aspects of the topic have been published, as well as dozens of papers in the best journals. There are new developments in the defense of the main positions (libertarianism, compatibilism, and skepticism about free will), in the science of agency, in discussions of moral responsibility, and much more. There has also been the establishment of an exciting new interdisciplinary free will project at Florida State University. We expect Flickers to benefit from, and help to foster this activity. Let’s flicker!

Best wishes,

Thomas Nadelhoffer, Neil Levy, Tamler Sommers, Dan Speak, Eddy Nahmias, Manuel Vargas, Michael McKenna, & Daniel Cohen