The Tale of Bubbles McKenzie

By Martin Young

In a philosophy textbook, I read that "the libertarian and the hard determinist both think the true meaning of the idea of freedom is "origination," or uncaused thoughts and actions originated by the agent herself;"

I know what "uncaused" means, but what does "origination" mean in this context?

Think about what it would mean to say that a thought of yours was uncaused.
What kind of thoughts are uncaused?
If a thought or an action was uncaused, would it really be appropriate to say that it was originated by the agent herself?

Let us imagine that we have a device that could create an uncaused thought in somebody's mind. Let us suppose we choose as our victim young Bubbles McKenzie, a Scottish-Canadian debutante who loves her grandfather, loves ponies, loves fast cars, and has absolutely no opinion about cheese. Let us suppose that while Bubbles is thinking a bunch of thoughts determined by her wants, desires and intentions, we use our device to make her have one uncaused thought. These are the thoughts she has.
1. I want a new car.
2. My pony is so cute.
3. I should throw cheese at my grandfather.
Now, which of these is most likely to be the uncaused thought? Which of these is most likely to have not been determined by the wants, desires and intentions of young Bubbles McKenzie?

Would it make sense to say that this uncaused thought was originated by Bubbles?
Would it perhaps make more sense to say that this uncaused thought originated in Bubbles?
If a thought is uncaused, can it possibly be an expression of your will?
If a thought has absolutely nothing to do with anything you care about, can it be an expression of your will?

Was the uncaused action originated by Bubbles, or was it merely originated in Bubbles?
How important is this difference?

Let us imagine that we crank our device up a notch, and create in Bubbles an uncaused action. Again, this action comes inside a group of caused actions. Here is that uncaused action, buried in a list of caused actions.
1. Bubbles changes the oil in her car.
2. Bubbles pelts her pony with chunks of rancid cheese.
3. Bubbles visits her grandfather, makes him a nice dinner, and listens appreciatively to stories she's already heard a hundred times.
Now, which of those would you think is most likely to be the uncaused action?

If you have the time and inclination, sit down and write out a list of uncaused actions that you could do.
If you're having trouble thinking up uncaused actions, just write down a list of all possible actions, as many of you can think of, the weirder, the better.
If one of the actions on your list is something you might want to do, cross it off the list. (If you did it because you wanted to, it wouldn't be uncaused.)
If one of the actions on your list is something you might like to do, cross it off the list. (If you did it because you liked it, it wouldn't be uncaused.)
If one of the actions on your list is something you might need to do, cross it off the list. (If you did it because you need to, it wouldn't be uncaused.)
And so on.

Would you ever want to do an uncaused action?
If you found yourself doing an uncaused action, would you be happy about it?

Is there any meaningful sense in which an action can be originated by you, while not being caused by you?

In this context, what does "originated" mean?

Is it logically possible for an action to be "originated" by me if that action is not caused by me?

Wouldn't it perhaps make better sense to say that an action was "originated" by me if and only if it was caused by my own wants, desires and intentions?
(I'm just saying.)

Soft Determinists, being compatibilists, believe that actions can be both determined and free. ("Free" means "uncoerced." "Determined" means "nonrandom.")

Libertarians, being incompatibilists, believe that only uncaused (ie. random) actions can be free. ("Random" means "not determined.)

If you think that libertarians don't believe that only random actions can be free, you have to explain exactly how an event can be undetermined without being random.

A soft determinist would argue that, if saying that Bubbles could have chosen not to visit her grandfather means that she could have made a choice that would have gone against her own personality, then that "free choice" to blow off her grandfather would be random from Bubbles's point of view, and would in fact have nothing what so ever to do with Bubbles.

A libertarian would argue that, if saying that Bubbles could have chosen not to visit her grandfather only means that she could have done otherwise if she had chosen to do so, then she did not visit her grandfather of her own free will because actions are only freewilled if the person could have done otherwise under all possible circumstances, including the circumstances of having not chosen to do otherwise. (For example, the Libertarian thinks that Bubbles' decision to visit her grandfather instead to going to a sports car rally (with ponies) would only be her free will if she could have gone to the rally even if she had not chosen to go to the rally.)

Here's a dialog that illustrates the difference.

Compo. I think Bubbles Mackenzie is a good person. She visited her grandfather, cooked him dinner, and listened to his boring stories.
Libby. But she didn't do it of her own free will.
Compo. Yes she did. She chose to do it. No one made her do it. And she could have gone to a party instead.
Libby. None of that matters, because she did not originate the action.
Compo. Yes she did! She thought of it, and then she did it.
Libby. No, an action can only be "originated" if it is uncaused. Bubbles's action was caused by her love for her grandfather which, given her personality meant that she could not do otherwise.
Compo. Yes she could. She could have gone to the party, if she had wanted to!
Libby. Aha! You said "if she had wanted to." The criterion is not "she could have done otherwise, if she had wanted to." It's "she could have done otherwise."
Compo. Do you mean to tell me that you think that we can only say that bubbles could have gone to the party, if it's true that she could've gone to the party even if she had not wanted to.
Libby. Exactly. That's what "could have done otherwise" means.
Compo. Well, as a matter of fact, she still could've gone to the party, even though she didn't want to, because no one would have stopped her if she had tried.
Libby. Oh come on! You know Bubbles. You know what kind of person she is. She could not possibly have gone to that party when she knew that her grandfather needed her.
Compo. I think you mean that she "would not," not "could not."
Libby. No, it's "could not." If her personality determined her actions, then she could not have done otherwise.
Compo. Well, if that's true, that's exactly what makes Bubbles a good person..
Libby. No, it means that she did not act of her own free will.
Compo. Well, what would be of her own free will?
Libby. An uncaused action originated by Bubbles herself.
Compo. Such as what?
Libby. Such is anything that was not caused by Bubbles's personality, but which was originated by Bubbles.
Compo. I'm not sure that's possible. Can you give me an example of such an action?
Libby. Sure. Let's say she fills her sports car with cold spaghetti. She loves that car, and so if her personality determines what she does, she could never fill it with cold spaghetti. So if she ever did fill her sports car with cold spaghetti, we would know she had done an uncaused action that was originated by herself.
Compo. I can see the "uncaused." Where is the "originated?"
Libby. Well the idea originated in her mind. It was uncaused, but it was originated by her.
Compo. If her personality and mental processes didn't make it happen, then she didn't originate it.
Libby. Sure she did. That's what makes filling her sports car with cold spaghetti a free act.
Compo. No, it makes it completely arbitrary event that has absolutely nothing to do with Bubbles.

So, who is right, the libertarian or the soft determinist?

Copyright © 2010 by Martin C. Young

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: