From: jimruttshow8596

Robert Sapolsky argues that there is no free will whatsoever, which fundamentally alters notions of responsibility [01:10:09]. This perspective challenges widely held beliefs that underpin societal structures, leading to questions about potential societal and ethical implications.

The “Noble Lie” Argument

A common concern raised when discussing the absence of free will is that society would “go to hell in a hurry” if people stopped believing in it [01:38:13]. It’s often suggested that murderers would “run around all over the place” because they wouldn’t be held responsible for their actions [01:39:24].

Some experiments have shown that when people are “primed” to believe less in free will, they may cheat more within a short period (20 minutes) [01:39:36]. This has been interpreted as a “collapse of civilization” [01:39:44].

A More Humane Society

Sapolsky contends that abandoning the belief in free will would actually make the world a “better place” and “much more humane” [01:39:17] [01:46:09].

Studies on individuals who have long believed there is no free will show they are “exactly as ethical” as those who fully believe in responsibility or a loving God [01:40:02]. Similarly, people who intensely think about the source of human goodness, whether it comes from fellow humans or a divine source, tend to be “way more ethical in their behavior than average” [01:40:34] [01:41:00].

Responsibility and Consequence

While the concept of free will is rejected, the necessity of dealing with dangerous individuals remains. Sapolsky uses an analogy:

“If your car’s brakes don’t work, you can’t drive it. It’s dangerous, it can’t be on the street. You’ve got to contain it, you’ve got to quarantine it, you got to put it in a garage and not drive it. And as a result the world is safer from that car” [01:42:25].

However, one would not decide that the car deserves to have its windshield broken or that it has a “bad soul” [01:42:44]. The focus shifts from moral blame to practical containment and safety [01:42:58]. This principle applies to individuals:

“You protect Society from dangerous things, but you constrain the person from doing dangerous stuff, but not one smidgen more” [01:43:55].

This perspective also extends to incompetence. Society prevents incompetent neurosurgeons from operating on grandmothers’ brains, but without attributing a “better soul” or more prestige to competent ones [01:44:08].

Re-evaluating Merit and Blame

A world without free will means re-evaluating how individuals are judged and rewarded.

“What a crappy screwed world this is that that’s one of those domains where we look at that and say there’s some sort of agency going on there and thus it is Justified that that person has a less happy life than somebody else does” [01:45:47].

For example, a person who is morbidly obese and has tried every diet is often seen as lacking “willpower,” while there might be a genetic basis, such as a gene coding for a leptin receptor, that predisposes them to morbid obesity, independent of their self-discipline [01:45:04]. Society judges such individuals, making them less likely to be hired, trusted, or loved [01:45:31].

Sapolsky argues that while it might be a “bummer” for those who feel they “earned” their success (e.g., an advanced degree) to realize they didn’t, the overall benefit is that “most of what’s going on in this planet is not people being rewarded for things they had no control over, it’s people being punished or made to feel bad about themselves or whatever over things they had no control over” [01:46:13].

Personal Change and Motivation

The idea that “nothing can ever change” if there’s no free will is also addressed [01:41:09]. Change does happen, but it’s not chosen; rather, individuals are changed by circumstances [01:41:34]. For instance, watching an inspiring movie might lead someone to learn more about a historical event, but this inspiration itself is a product of prior circumstances [01:41:53].

Praising “grit” or “tenacity” can be instrumentally useful, as it may influence an individual’s brain (specifically, the prefrontal cortex) to work harder next time [01:03:51]. However, this is not an endorsement of a “magical” quality like free will, but rather an understanding of how external input influences brain function [01:01:45] [01:03:42]. Similarly, the Marshmallow Test, which predicts long-term success based on delayed gratification, demonstrates differences in prefrontal cortex function from an early age, rather than an inherent moral “merit” [01:06:04] [01:07:04].

“If you say to the person, ‘wow that’s great that you did that’ and as a result they’re more likely to do it again, yeah maybe that was an effective thing to do but don’t really believe they have a better soul” [01:08:24].

In conclusion, Sapolsky’s perspective suggests that removing the belief in free will from societal and ethical frameworks would lead to a more compassionate and understanding world, where individuals are seen as products of their biological and environmental influences, rather than being morally culpable for circumstances beyond their control.