This post is discussing a bit of old news, but it may be relevant news in light of recent events. Over the weekend I came across this old post from Scientific American’s Bering in Mind blog. There are two parts to the post, and both are worth discussing. There’s a report on recent studies about how ideas can affect behavior, and a discussion of the “Would you kill Hitler as a child?†question. I’ll start with the former, even though the blog author leads off with the latter.
Bering cites two studies that indicate that when people have been primed to think about, or accept, the position of determinism, they are more likely to engage in less ethical behaviors. Here’s how Bering describes one of the studies.
In fact, a study published last year in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Roy Baumeister and his colleagues found that simply by exposing people to deterministic statements such as, “Like everything else in the universe, all human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules†made them act more aggressively and selfishly compared to those who read statements endorsing the idea of free will, such as, “I demonstrate my free will every day when I make decisions†or those who simply read neutral statements, such as, “Oceans cover 71 percent of the earth’s surface.†Participants who’d been randomly assigned to the deterministic condition, for example, were less likely than those from the other two groups to give money to a homeless person, or to allow a classmate to use their cellular phone.
Now, it’s important to note that results like this do not provide evidence for or against determinism. You could say that the results happen because we do have free will, but when we think about the idea that we don’t, we give ourselves more leeway to be selfish. Or you could say that we do not have free will, and that somehow whatever part of our brain is activated when we think about determinism also causes an increase in selfish behaviors. The question is, what do we do with the results? Do we say that even if determinism is true, the results of acknowledging that truth are so negative that we should not do it? Or do we find some way to build up a buffer, to help introduce a counter-force that will lead people to less antisocial behavior?
The irony, of course, is that if human behavior is fully determined, the question of what we should do is irrelevant, because we are going to do what we are going to do. But our asking and pondering of the irrelevant question can not be prevented by our understanding of its irrelevance, because we are determined to do it. So we can really only hope that our deterministic process is leading us to a result that we find desirable. (Or maybe we can’t hope anything at all, if we are so determined.)
If determinism is false, then it seems like we need to find a way to emphasize responsibility even when discussing determinism. Stay away from talking about fate and maybe even the idea that everything happens for a reason. Point out that if what we do is determined by who we are and the circumstances that we find ourselves in, our brains and minds possess the structures that can produce beneficial choices. If who I am determines what I do, let me be the best me that I can. I’m not sure the idea hangs together coherently, but again, we’re trying to discuss the idea of determinism without losing sight of personal responsibility.
You can see the tension I’m talking about in Bering’s discussion of the question, “Would you kill Hitler as a child?†He says that he can’t help but feel that Hitler could have prevented the Holocaust; that regardless of social forces Hitler had the choice not to be so destructive. He didn’t make that choice, so he must be inherently evil, and therefore deserves to die. But if Hitler is essentially evil, then it was never possible for him to choose good. So his essence, or nature, is what determined his actions, and there was never any choice. If there was no choice, was there responsibility?
As for me, I wouldn’t do it. I can’t reliably predict the effect of Hitler’s death. If could see a fairly direct link between saving lives and killing someone, I could see the argument. But in a more nebulous situation, all I have to go by is my own ethical compass, which doesn’t support homicide.